OK, fed about 500 homeless and hungry people a NICE TG dinner in my ministry.....I think we can gear back up over the next few days.

I scanned back over the old thread and feel I pretty much answered the questions there if people will go back and read the posts in detail.

I would like to begin this thread by simply throwing out an olive branch; over the years I have noticed something about my friends on the other side: You seem a bit paranoid in that you hone in on the radicals who embrace Intelligent Design at the peril of grasping the overall perspective of it. You let them freak you out.

You ignore the majority of us who's views may not be that different than yours, or at least the majority of those who study origins as a science.

As example, I, as an individual, do not want to see Darwinism thrown out of public schools, I just want to see it taught in truth and it's tenets, both pro and con, examined in honesty. Is there something wrong with with truth in science? I think most of you would agree there isn't.

I would also like to see the tenets of ID taught in the same manner, after all, it was the concept of ID that brought us most science, a good chunk of philosopy; and the gist of theology throughout history. Yet, there are some (just as radical on the Dawrinist side, I'm afraid) who would like to see THIS fact ignored in our public schools because of THEIR religious beliefs.

Ignore the Ken Hams...most of us think their views are nuts as well. Examine the truths of a concept that has; and will forever more, permeate society around the world. And understand that this is NOT some newfangled concept designed to pull science out of schools and infuse religion therein. This is only what you've been told by some of your own radicals. Were the early philosophers religious nuts?

Socrates [1a], Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were just a few of the philosophers to argue for teleology when contemplating the origins of life. The opposite pole of the spectrum, the materialists, were represented by such great minds as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos.

Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:

"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?…And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"

Although theologically, ID is often traced back to Paley's watch on the heath, what is little known is that much earlier, it was firmly entrenched into philosophy and later, others would tie intelligent design directly into science.

Another example of the philosophy aspect was St. Thomas Aquinus' 5 ways where he mused both Intelligent Design and also conceived a Prime Mover in the universe hundreds of years before Newton would firmly entrench into science the same concept in the form of a law: objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force.

And, more specific to science, was the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[2]

According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity . . . he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."

Harvey commented to Robert Boyle (the father of modern Chemistry) how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine “that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins.”

Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere. But you have to weed out those, just as are present on your side, who wish to twist and manipulate the discipline to suit their own religious beliefs,..... and they abound in number. Ignore them.....seek truth:

1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?

One reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solids/waves in the universe. Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all!

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.

6) Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

So..... let's discuss.

[1a] This line of reasoning first condensed and compiled by Mike Gene. Please see reference 1 and read the Web Site listed under that reference.

[4] Greek term for the end--teleology is a philosophy that muses completion, purpose, or a goal-driven process of any thing or activity. Aristotle argued that teleology is the final cause accounting for the existence and nature of a thing. Teleological: an explanation, theory, hypotheses or argument that emphasizes purpose.

As example, I, as an individual, do not want to see Darwinism thrown out of public schools, I just want to see it taught in truth and it's tenets, both pro and con, examined in honesty.

It already is taught that way.

Quote

Is there something wrong with with truth in science? I think most of you would agree there isn't.

Problem is when religious wackaloons start proclaiming their religious beliefs to be 'truth' and demanding equal time in science classrooms.

Quote

And understand that this is NOT some newfangled concept designed to pull science out of schools and infuse religion therein.

Sadly, that's ALL it is.

Quote

Socrates [1a], Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were just a few of the philosophers to argue for teleology when contemplating the origins of life. The opposite pole of the spectrum, the materialists, were represented by such great minds as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos.

Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:

"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?…And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"

Although theologically, ID is often traced back to Paley's watch on the heath, what is little known is that much earlier, it was firmly entrenched into philosophy and later, others would tie intelligent design directly into science.

Another example of the philosophy aspect was St. Thomas Aquinus' 5 ways where he mused both Intelligent Design and also conceived a Prime Mover in the universe hundreds of years before Newton would firmly entrench into science the same concept in the form of a law: objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force.

Great. We'll teach ID in philosophy class.

Quote

And, more specific to science, was the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[2]

According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity . . . he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."

Harvey commented to Robert Boyle (the father of modern Chemistry) how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine “that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins.”

Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere.

LOL! Sure thing.

Quote

But you have to weed out those, just as are present on your side, who wish to twist and manipulate the discipline to suit their own religious beliefs,..... and they abound in number. Ignore them.....seek truth:

...and of course your religion get to decide what is truth, right?

Quote

1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics.

More bullshit. All those sciences start off by hypothesizing the identity of the designer (usually human, sometimes animal in the case of trace fossil evidence), then trying to match the unknown with something previously known to be designed.

Quote

Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.

ID doesn't use the same method.

Quote

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?

The assumption is that the designer in each case was human. If not the proper name, give us the species of your Intelligent Designer.

Quote

One reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solids/waves in the universe. Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all!

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

Your "model for initial design" is nothing more than POOF! MAGIC MAN DID IT!'

Quote

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID."

No shit.

Quote

6) Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?

But that's not what ID is. ID is about putting your particular religion back into science. Not gonna happen.

Quote

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

You mean there is tons of God-Of-The-Gaps bullshit. But we understand.

Quote

So..... let's discuss.

Do you have anything new to add beyond the stale old PRATT claims from the IDiot camp? If not, there's nothing to discuss.

--------------JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

Guys, it's hard to address responses to my musings when all you say is Bullshit...lol

Quote

It already is taught that way.

No, the truth is not taught in schools about Darwinism....Never is it taught that the fossil record shows not a single transition from species A to species B to imply speciation......etc. only the pros are taught...not the cons.

Quote

Problem is when religious wackaloons start proclaiming their religious beliefs to be 'truth' and demanding equal time in science classrooms.

You mean the evangelical atheists called secular humanists who mask their religious faith as science to teach that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter against the scientific definition of a sexual species? I would agree.

Quote

Great. We'll teach ID in philosophy class.

Science is also philosophy....Never heard of methodological naturalism and the scientific method?

Of course not...just a good analogy to get you thinking....Never implied otherwise.

Quote

The hypothesis is that the designer in each case was human. If not the proper name, give us the species of your Intelligent Designer.

Just like in ALL chemical design, I believe that the designer is Quantum Mechanics.......is QM a human, or a deity to you? You'll have to think that out for yourself.

Quote

More bullshit. All those sciences start off by hypothesizing the identity of the designer (usually human, sometimes animal in the case of trace fossil evidence), then trying to match the unknown with something previously known to be designed.

Ahhhh...so you believe that chemistry, biology and physics also has designers.....They all begin by hypothesising the designer.......This is news to me, but I'll take it...lol

Quote

Your "model for initial design" is nothing more than POOF! MAGIC MAN DID IT!'

No, that's abiogenesis and natural selection with people magicially poofing from monkeys and birds popping into dinosaurs and the like that is confusing you. Again, I believe QM does the designing. You have my permission to call QM God if you wish....:)

Quote

Do you have anything new to add beyond the stale old PRATT claims from the IDiot camp? If not, there's nothing to discuss.

Guys, it's hard to address responses to my musings when all you say is Bullshit...lol

It's impossible to rationally discuss a topic when all you post is the same tired old PRATT bullshit.

"no transitional fossils"

"evolution is religion"

"natural selection can't create"

Same old IDiot nonsense. Boring.

Please don't leave out the fact that what you gloss over in this post as trite, boring or idiocy has never been convincingly answered by your side to any extent what-so-ever, if indeed you ARE of the 'Darwinism as faith' persuasion.

However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side. That is simply a misunderstanding or obfuscation on your part. Evolution is an indisputable fact of science. To think differently would be to throw all that is known about genetics out the window.

Please don't leave out the fact that what you gloss over in this post as trite, boring or idiocy has never been convincingly answered by your side to any extent what-so-ever, if indeed you ARE of the 'Darwinism as faith' persuasion.

Your inane blithering has been answered to the complete satisfaction of the scientific community. No one gives a shit if it hasn't been answered sufficiently for you.

Quote

However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side. That is simply a misunderstanding or obfuscation on your part. Evolution is an indisputable fact of science. To think differently would be to throw all that is known about genetics out the window.

Then what's with the Creationist stupidity "there are no transitional fossils" nonsense?

--------------JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

No, I'm not going to go point by point into your fucking idiocy because it's fucking idiocy.

First of all, if you don't have a PhD in Physics or Chemistry and have earned a B+ or better in Quantum Electrodynamics II or III then you have no fucking privilege to use the word "quantum" in anything you write. No, sorry, Bible 101 is not good enough, nor is a subscription to Discovery magazine.

In case you are unsure of the term "bullshit" which is an academic term, I suggest you read the book "On Bullshit" to find out where you stand.

Sorry, but the best I can do is mock you by saying fuck you and the horse you rode in on, whom I hope was a mare. Just saying.

No, I'm not going to go point by point into your fucking idiocy because it's fucking idiocy.

First of all, if you don't have a PhD in Physics or Chemistry and have earned a B+ or better in Quantum Electrodynamics II or III then you have no fucking privilege to use the word "quantum" in anything you write. No, sorry, Bible 101 is not good enough, nor is a subscription to Discovery magazine.

In case you are unsure of the term "bullshit" which is an academic term, I suggest you read the book "On Bullshit" to find out where you stand.

Sorry, but the best I can do is mock you by saying fuck you and the horse you rode in on, whom I hope was a mare. Just saying.

Guys, it's hard to address responses to my musings when all you say is Bullshit...lol

Quote

It already is taught that way.

No, the truth is not taught in schools about Darwinism....Never is it taught that the fossil record shows not a single transition from species A to species B to imply speciation......etc. only the pros are taught...not the cons.

Quote

Problem is when religious wackaloons start proclaiming their religious beliefs to be 'truth' and demanding equal time in science classrooms.

You mean the evangelical atheists called secular humanists who mask their religious faith as science to teach that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter against the scientific definition of a sexual species? I would agree.

Quote

Great. We'll teach ID in philosophy class.

Science is also philosophy....Never heard of methodological naturalism and the scientific method?

Of course not...just a good analogy to get you thinking....Never implied otherwise.

Quote

The hypothesis is that the designer in each case was human. If not the proper name, give us the species of your Intelligent Designer.

Just like in ALL chemical design, I believe that the designer is Quantum Mechanics.......is QM a human, or a deity to you? You'll have to think that out for yourself.

Quote

More bullshit. All those sciences start off by hypothesizing the identity of the designer (usually human, sometimes animal in the case of trace fossil evidence), then trying to match the unknown with something previously known to be designed.

Ahhhh...so you believe that chemistry, biology and physics also has designers.....They all begin by hypothesising the designer.......This is news to me, but I'll take it...lol

Quote

Your "model for initial design" is nothing more than POOF! MAGIC MAN DID IT!'

No, that's abiogenesis and natural selection with people magicially poofing from monkeys and birds popping into dinosaurs and the like that is confusing you. Again, I believe QM does the designing. You have my permission to call QM God if you wish....:)

Quote

Do you have anything new to add beyond the stale old PRATT claims from the IDiot camp? If not, there's nothing to discuss.

You seem quite adept at discussion thus far....*wink*

jerry, just one of the mistakes you're making is erroneously labeling modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism".

Another is this:

"You mean the evangelical atheists called secular humanists who mask their religious faith as science to teach that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter against the scientific definition of a sexual species?"

No one (at least no one with a clue about evolution or evolutionary theory) teaches that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter. Your statement shows how ignorant you are about evolution and evolutionary theory. It also shows that your agenda is a religious one since your remarks are meant to be insulting to atheists and secular humanists. If ID is strictly scientific, and not a religious agenda, WHY do you care at all whether someone is an atheist or a secular humanist? And why doesn't it bother you that your religion teaches that humans were magically morphed from dust and a rib?

The ape to man thing is what bugs you creationists the most, isn't it? To you, an ape (or ape-like life form) is a lowly, stupid, soul-less, unclean animal, and humans (or at least 'god-fearing' humans) are exceptional, ensouled, clean beings who are specially created in the image of "God", right? Humans, being so 'special', just couldn't have evolved from a filthy ape, could they? And there's just no way that an ape could be anywhere close to the image of "God", eh?

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.

No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.

Quote

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.

No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!

Quote

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?

That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.

Quote

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.

Quote

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.

Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isn’t a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.

Quote

Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?

ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.

Quote

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

How exciting, let’s talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Do you honestly think that you're the first person to come up with these ideas or that no one has ever had to deal with these concepts that you posted?

In fact, the Kitzmiller trial dealt handily with every single one of those 'issues' that you have brought up. Basically, what you are doing is rehashing dead arguments.

That's why we are calling it bullshit and not bothering to describe to your complete satisfaction everything you desire. There are several other reasons.

1) You won't accept anything that actually is evidence as evidence anyway. So there's no point in providing you with all the evidence for transitional species, abiogenesis, or anything else. You think evidence is a book of myths written 2000 years ago.

2) You obviously haven't bothered to even consider the mountains of peer-reviewed work written in the last 100 years. This stuff is readily available on the internet or in the university library of your choice. Yet, you've never even bothered to type "evidence of transitional fossils" into Wikipedia where are there are links to about 50 peer-reviewed papers and additional reference material. When you have read every single one of them and found errors and had those errors published and recognized and published an alternate explanation that uses principles of ID, then come talk to us. The same thing applies to abiogenesis (over 150 links to peer-reviewed research and other reference materials).

3) No one really cares that you are ignorant. And you are. You are stunningly ignorant about the subjects you come here to debate. It's your own fault. Do you know why I don't have an advanced degree? One reason is that I can read peer-reviewed research, judge the validity on my own, and use that to compile new information all by myself. I don't need 3 years of education on that topic. I can literally learn anything that I want to, because I can read and think critically. You obviously can't do these things. Why should we spoon feed you stuff that we busted ass to learn on our own?

4) There is no indication that you want to actually learn how science, evolution, abiogenesis, fossilization, or any of a dozen other concepts that you malign work. In other words, you are ignorant, proud of it, and choose to remain that way.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Years later and -- pretending for a moment it's all about the science -- I still don't see the point of ID.

"This doesn't seem likely" is still not positive evidence of interference, tinkering, or front-loading of anything by anyone. They still conflate "We don't know yet" with "Goddidit".

Even if you could somehow pretend ID is a scientific idea, what possible use could it ever be? "Welp, this bit looks designed. Moving on..."

How does pretending bipedalism (or GULO damage or nylonase production or...) was a gift from somewhere, change how we deal with it?

Useless.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Mr Bauer, could you please define what you mean when you say "transitional fossil" - what features should it have?

Hello Kattarina:

If all of life sprang from a common ancestor--a protist--as example, the fossil record would show a gradual transition from that initial organism to higher life forms: gradual macroevolution, or what Gould and others spoke of as gradualism.

The fossil record is a very accurate record of the history of the origin of homo sapiens and the other complex life forms.

But it does not show this by any stretch of the imagination! Gould and many others have pointed out this flaw as did Darwin himself--Which is one reason, I believe, he came up with Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek) which has more problems than the lack of gradualism he attempted to explain away.

Instead of gradualism, we find long periods of stasis where nothing seemed to be happening, interspersed with periods of sudden (relatively so-when we consider the billions of years of biotic history on earth, our island home) appearance of higher life forms. The Cambrian Explosion is a good example of this.

These higher evolved organisms appeared seemingly out of nowhere with no fossil record leading up to that appearance--fully formed and ready to compete in their environment.

In fact, they STAY the way they initially appeared in the record until they become extinct, never evolving into anything else.

A good example might be a find of the following fossils: Species A -----> transition 1 -----> transition 2 -----> transition 3 -----> New species B.

There ARE a few examples that Darwinists point to and proclaim as transitions, yet there are NONE that are not controversial in that this could just be other similar species, etc. And they can't even seem to agree themselves that these are transitions.

This is a major flaw in Darwinistic thought that no one has yet to convincingly explain.

Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

No, I'm not going to go point by point into your fucking idiocy because it's fucking idiocy.

First of all, if you don't have a PhD in Physics or Chemistry and have earned a B+ or better in Quantum Electrodynamics II or III then you have no fucking privilege to use the word "quantum" in anything you write. No, sorry, Bible 101 is not good enough, nor is a subscription to Discovery magazine.

In case you are unsure of the term "bullshit" which is an academic term, I suggest you read the book "On Bullshit" to find out where you stand.

Sorry, but the best I can do is mock you by saying fuck you and the horse you rode in on, whom I hope was a mare. Just saying.

p.s. And, yes, I am a lot smarter than you.

Right....I understand that you cannot address the discussion rationally......It's OK.

Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

Jerry,

Not all particles are entangled. Your QM argument lacks coherence.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

If all of life sprang from a common ancestor--a protist--as example, the fossil record would show a gradual transition from that initial organism to higher life forms: gradual macroevolution, or what Gould and others spoke of as gradualism.

The fossil record is a very accurate record of the history of the origin of homo sapiens and the other complex life forms.

But it does not show this by any stretch of the imagination! Gould and many others have pointed out this flaw as did Darwin himself--Which is one reason, I believe, he came up with Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek) which has more problems than the lack of gradualism he attempted to explain away.

Instead of gradualism, we find long periods of stasis where nothing seemed to be happening, interspersed with periods of sudden (relatively so-when we consider the billions of years of biotic history on earth, our island home) appearance of higher life forms.

Sorry but that's just not true. Evolution acts as a feedback loop tracking changes in the environment. If the environment is stable for long periods of time we'll see long periods of little morphological change. If the environment changes rapidly (geologically speaking) we'll see more rapid morphological change. There are clear examples of both occurrences in the fossil record.

Quote

The Cambrian Explosion is a good example of this.

OK, so you're ignorant of all the pre-Cambrian life forms that have been discovered, i.e. the Ediacaran fauna.

Quote

These higher evolved organisms appeared seemingly out of nowhere with no fossil record leading up to that appearance--fully formed and ready to compete in their environment.

Tell us, what would a not fully formed animal look like?

Sorry doofus, but the fossil record 'sampling rate' is way too low to accurately record every step in a transitional sequence, especially if the environment/morphological changes are happening relatively rapidly. Scientists have known this for about two centuries now.

--------------JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find. Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistanceby Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

Sorry doofus, but the fossil record 'sampling rate' is way too low to accurately record every step in a transitional sequence, especially if the environment/morphological changes are happening relatively rapidly. Scientists have known this for about two centuries now.

This!

If every organism was fossilized, we'd be sitting on nothing but fossils and none of the material from those organisms would be available to the rest of the planet.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

just one of the mistakes you're making is erroneously labeling modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism".

No, that's NOT a mistake. You guys haven't added much of anything to Darwin's initial musings for the last 150 years. Just fluff, smoke and mirrors as if you are attempting to support a faith.

We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism.

Quote

(at least no one with a clue about evolution or evolutionary theory) teaches that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter. Your statement shows how ignorant you are about evolution and evolutionary theory. It also shows that your agenda is a religious one since your remarks are meant to be insulting to atheists and secular humanists. If ID is strictly scientific, and not a religious agenda, WHY do you care at all whether someone is an atheist or a secular humanist? And why doesn't it bother you that your religion teaches that humans were magically morphed from dust and a rib?

My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think.

And I can assure you that, to those of us who do not take the teachings of evolutionary biologists seriously, it appears that at some point, man 'magically morphed' from an apeoid.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.

Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it.

Quote

The ape to man thing is what bugs you creationists the most, isn't it? To you, an ape (or ape-like life form) is a lowly, stupid, soul-less, unclean animal, and humans (or at least 'god-fearing' humans) are exceptional, ensouled, clean beings who are specially created in the image of "God", right? Humans, being so 'special', just couldn't have evolved from a filthy ape, could they? And there's just no way that an ape could be anywhere close to the image of "God", eh?

No...LOL...that scripture does not mean that God looks like man. Nor is there anything in Darwinistic theory that would conflict with my religious beliefs. In fact, there are a few (a few but not many) Christian believers who also embrace Darwinism.

I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do. It's simply scientifically silly.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genomehttp://http/....ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think.

Not to derail the thread, but this is a fascinating claim.

First, I have some people that you need to meet. Perhaps you can explain this concept to them. Or they can convince you that you aren't a true Christian because you don't believe that the magic book is true.

Second, which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical... and how do you know?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.

No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.

Quote

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.

No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!

Quote

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?

That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.

Quote

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.

Quote

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.

Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isn’t a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.

Quote

Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?

ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.

Quote

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

How exciting, let’s talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".

Quote

No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.

On WHAT matter? There are TONS of papers that support ID. Are you expecting to read a PDF that begins, "OK, this paper is about ID science"......You won't find any of those because ID is not in itself a separarte science. We study biology, chemistry and physics just as anyone else does.

And, if this discussion continues to fruition, I will be happy to show you all the science and math that one would ever care to see on the subject...*wink*

Quote

No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!

No, I can't think of any reason for an archeologist to employ the predictive nature of probability mathematics such as CSI. I was referring to semiotics which both bodies of thought employ.

Quote

That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.

If you don't think OM exhibits intelligence, then I'll wager you have not studied the field in depth. I would suggest you begin with the double slit experiments where the presence of an intelligent observer affects how a particle behaves.

But yes, ID requires a designer, but it does NOT require that we know who/what that designer is any more than it is required that you know the design engineer of the subway system every morning before you can ride it to work in the morning.

Quote

You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.

There are a TON of papers out there that support ID. I will get into a few as we progress.

However, I understand that Darwinism says nothing about abiogenesis, but here is the deal: Many people use Darwinism in their overall belief system to justify natural origins without intelligent interference. It is to the latter that I refere to when I throw out abiogenesis. It all comes together to compose a body of thought called Secular Humanism.

Quote

Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isn’t a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.

It's just a field of study...nothing more or less. What is the theory of biology? What is the theory of chemistry? Sounds silly to even ask that, doesn't it....Doesn't mean we don't study chem and bios...etc.

Quote

ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.

This is correct...ID is not, in itself, a science. It is the study of science from a different angle: We may see design in a system or artifact when YOU are not even looking for design as you study it. That's all ID is.

And you sum up science very well. I just wish it were true that Darwinists followed your advice on this. If they did, there would be no such thing as a "theory of evolution" taught to innocent young minds. A hypothesis that has never been experimentally tested to take it to the theory level, yes.....but a theory....no.

Quote

How exciting, let’s talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".

I will get into QM design when the time is right...Don't touch that dial....

But with sudden bursts of speciation so solidly shown in the fossil record, doesn't that lend creedence to about ANY pet theory of origins other than Darwinism i.e. gradualism? :)))

Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

Jerry,

Not all particles are entangled. Your QM argument lacks coherence.

Tracy:

Particles that are created at the same time in the same system become entangled. Did the big bang not create all particles in this universe at the same time? With me on that?

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

I didn't say anything about "drug resistant bacteria due to mutations". I said "some aspects of evolutionary processes". The particulars (or aspects) regarding mutations, drift, stasis, punctuated equilibrium, junk DNA, epigenetics, speciation, selection, extinction, adaptation, variation, convergence, recombination, gene flow, etc., etc., etc. are regularly debated ("contested") by scientists. Scientists who agree that evolution occurs don't necessarily agree on the particulars of how it occurs. Sometimes the debates can be quite contentious, such as in the recent debates about the Encode claims. That's not necessarily a bad thing though because such debates ultimately help lead to more research and a better understanding.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

2) CSI is probability mathematics now? What is the probability that I was designed then? how do you know? Calculate my probability.

3) But we know the LIMITS of the designer of a subway. If you don't know the limits of the designer, then you just assume that it can do anything (which you do). Does the designer have any limits? If yes, why? How do you know? If not, why? How do you know? Can the designer create anything? How do you know?

These are all questions that can be answered in forensics, anthropology, etc. They cannot be answered for ID. In fact, as you state, you go out of your way to avoid answering them. Which means that you aren't really doing anything but making up stories.

Again, you need to meet some people. Maybe you can convince them that they are wrong about ID and the designer or you can convince them they are wrong about ID and the designer. But you people really need to get together and come up with one notion and stick to it.

4) Have you ever heard of "punctuated equilibria"? Just out of curiosity, I mean, I know it's ancient science and all. Do you understand the concept behind the Hardy-Weinberg equation and why it's relevant to this discussion? I guess not.

Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism.

we who?

do you have the moulding corpse of a scientist in your cellar?

do you think anyone gives a fuck what you think about science? I don't!

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Are you expecting to read a PDF that begins, "OK, this paper is about ID science"......You won't find any of those because ID is not in itself a separarte science. We study biology, chemistry and physics just as anyone else does.

And, if this discussion continues to fruition, I will be happy to show you all the science and math that one would ever care to see on the subject...*wink*

Yeah, I am expecting to read a journal article (not just a .pdf you dipshit) that says "This supports intelligent design creationism because X, Y and Z". Or just fucking X. Or *anything*. Because you dipshits haven't ever done anything worth a shit with your intelligent design creationism except make us laugh at you for years and years and years

you don't study shit at all, not just as anyone else does but not at all. That's why you spout endless reams of horseshittery about your misconceptions and misunderstandings. the reason why you don't respond to peer review or criticism is because you are too stupid to, which is a different problem than the part about you not actually studying any fucking thing whatsoever.

we are far past fruition, fruit. please post your bibliography. or whatever "show you all the science and math" means to you. sounds creepy.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Years later and -- pretending for a moment it's all about the science -- I still don't see the point of ID.

"This doesn't seem likely" is still not positive evidence of interference, tinkering, or front-loading of anything by anyone. They still conflate "We don't know yet" with "Goddidit".

Even if you could somehow pretend ID is a scientific idea, what possible use could it ever be? "Welp, this bit looks designed. Moving on..."

How does pretending bipedalism (or GULO damage or nylonase production or...) was a gift from somewhere, change how we deal with it?

Useless.

It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.

Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.

Eureka.....I have found it!

But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.

Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.

But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves.

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find. Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistanceby Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.

What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?

Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.

Years later and -- pretending for a moment it's all about the science -- I still don't see the point of ID.

"This doesn't seem likely" is still not positive evidence of interference, tinkering, or front-loading of anything by anyone. They still conflate "We don't know yet" with "Goddidit".

Even if you could somehow pretend ID is a scientific idea, what possible use could it ever be? "Welp, this bit looks designed. Moving on..."

How does pretending bipedalism (or GULO damage or nylonase production or...) was a gift from somewhere, change how we deal with it?

Useless.

It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.

Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.

Eureka.....I have found it!

But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.

Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.

But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves.

Since it's apparent you can't support your claim with peer-reviewed work...

or calculate, measure, or otherwise determine CSI for anything...

what can ID do?

We already have a science/philosophical view of the universe. It's called science. Philosophy that is robust, testable, falsifiable is folded into science. Atoms were once a philosophical notion about dividing objects. Now, they are well tested, robust, science that is used to predict the behavior of millions of chemical reactions on a daily basis throughout the world.

what can ID do? Specifically. Predict anything? Determine a new result? Show why something happens the way it does?

Go ahead, I'll wait (and keep asking), I've been waiting for an ID proponent to do this for almost two decades.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genomehttp://http/....ttp........ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*

Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

You missed the point. IDiot-creationists are not pushing QM as 'the designer'. They're pushing "God" as 'the designer', whether they will openly and honestly admit it or not.

So you're claiming that "God" is made of particles? Who or what made "God", and is "God" made of the same particles as humans?

Are you claiming that alleged miracles are just a mistaken impression about natural QM processes/events? Do you tell the people you 'minister' that?

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find. Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistanceby Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.

What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?

Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.

Well hell son, I'd hate to make this hard for you. Tell you what, how about you learn this the same way I did?

Which, BTW, was reading a shitload of long papers. Examining them. Looking for flaws. Comparing results with other papers. Reading a lot of books. Comparing them (and BTW: the pro-ID books suck; bad writing, no science, poor arguments, impossible conclusions, etc). Generating my own conclusions instead of those handed to me by professors.

And you know what? I don't even have a graduate degree. I do this FOR FUN and because it's necessary to understand the science and the way the world works.

slacker

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

First, I have some people that you need to meet. Perhaps you can explain this concept to them. Or they can convince you that you aren't a true Christian because you don't believe that the magic book is true.

No, they won't convince me of anything along that vein. There is nothing in the Christian conversion (unfortunately) that raises the IQ of the converted. Be careful who you listen to out there.

Quote

Second, which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical... and how do you know?

You become educated. You learn that Hermeneutics is not some Arkansas farmer named Herman.

You then employ hermeneutics to ascertain truth in text. Not just the Bible....any compiled text of the similarity.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genomehttp://http/....ttp........ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*

First, I have some people that you need to meet. Perhaps you can explain this concept to them. Or they can convince you that you aren't a true Christian because you don't believe that the magic book is true.

No, they won't convince me of anything along that vein. There is nothing in the Christian conversion (unfortunately) that raises the IQ of the converted. Be careful who you listen to out there.

Quote

Second, which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical... and how do you know?

You become educated. You learn that Hermeneutics is not some Arkansas farmer named Herman.

You then employ hermeneutics to ascertain truth in text. Not just the Bible....any compiled text of the similarity.

LOL

So, you have admitted that nothing will change your mind. So we're all just wanking here. You included. There is no evidence that will change your mind. You are functionally immune to evidence.

As far as listening to them... I don't even listen to you. I hear what you say and laugh at your inability to do even the things you claim to be able to do. (I'm still waiting for references and that CSI probability calculation.)

As far as the Bible, well, this is your thread. Let's have some fun.

Which of these passages is literal and which is metaphorical and why?

Luke 3:23–38

Matthew 1:1–17

And be careful, I just might surprise you with how much I've studied.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

just one of the mistakes you're making is erroneously labeling modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism".

No, that's NOT a mistake. You guys haven't added much of anything to Darwin's initial musings for the last 150 years. Just fluff, smoke and mirrors as if you are attempting to support a faith.

We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism.

Quote

(at least no one with a clue about evolution or evolutionary theory) teaches that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter. Your statement shows how ignorant you are about evolution and evolutionary theory. It also shows that your agenda is a religious one since your remarks are meant to be insulting to atheists and secular humanists. If ID is strictly scientific, and not a religious agenda, WHY do you care at all whether someone is an atheist or a secular humanist? And why doesn't it bother you that your religion teaches that humans were magically morphed from dust and a rib?

My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think.

And I can assure you that, to those of us who do not take the teachings of evolutionary biologists seriously, it appears that at some point, man 'magically morphed' from an apeoid.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.

Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it.

Quote

The ape to man thing is what bugs you creationists the most, isn't it? To you, an ape (or ape-like life form) is a lowly, stupid, soul-less, unclean animal, and humans (or at least 'god-fearing' humans) are exceptional, ensouled, clean beings who are specially created in the image of "God", right? Humans, being so 'special', just couldn't have evolved from a filthy ape, could they? And there's just no way that an ape could be anywhere close to the image of "God", eh?

No...LOL...that scripture does not mean that God looks like man. Nor is there anything in Darwinistic theory that would conflict with my religious beliefs. In fact, there are a few (a few but not many) Christian believers who also embrace Darwinism.

I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do. It's simply scientifically silly.

It's a fairytale for grownups.

Wow, you've got a lot to learn. I'm only going to respond to some of your ridiculous comments because I have better things to do than trying to thoroughly educate you.

You obviously haven't been keeping up if you think that "Just fluff, smoke and mirrors" have been added to Darwin's "initial musings".

Actually, your religion does claim that the first man was created (by "God") from dust and that the first woman was created from the first man's rib. Many people take and teach that literally, and many don't.

The transition from ape-like life forms to humans didn't occur overnight and no credible scientist says it did. And there is a very strong scientific basis for postulating that humans evolved from ape-like and many previous life forms.

This doesn't make any sense:

"Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.

Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it."

What the hell are you talking about?

I didn't say that "God looks like man" or that "scripture" says that "God looks like man", although there is the stuff in "scripture" about "God" being a 'he/him/his' and the "Father" and the "Prince" and the "Lord" and the "King" (all masculine labels) and there's also some stuff about a character called "Jesus" who is alleged to have been a man and to have looked like a man and is also alleged to be "God" or "Lord" or "Father", etc., by many or all christians. Also, many christians think that "image" means "looks like" and that "God" looks like a man. Tell me, what does "God" the 'Father/Prince/Lord/King' look like?

What exactly is "Darwinistic theory"?

You said:

"I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do."

The vast majority of people who actually "study" evolution accept that evolution has occurred and does occur. Most people don't "study" evolution.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Years later and -- pretending for a moment it's all about the science -- I still don't see the point of ID.

"This doesn't seem likely" is still not positive evidence of interference, tinkering, or front-loading of anything by anyone. They still conflate "We don't know yet" with "Goddidit".

Even if you could somehow pretend ID is a scientific idea, what possible use could it ever be? "Welp, this bit looks designed. Moving on..."

How does pretending bipedalism (or GULO damage or nylonase production or...) was a gift from somewhere, change how we deal with it?

Useless.

It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.

Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.

Eureka.....I have found it!

But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.

Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.

But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves.

"...the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna..."

All science so far!

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find. Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistanceby Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.

What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?

Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.

I know what point Tracy is making and if you were honest you would too. It has to do with your comment:

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Your attempt at diversionary games won't work here.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genomehttp://http/....ttp........ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*

So it's really just another take on Dianetics or Lifespring. Greeeeaatt...

Quote

Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.

Eureka.....I have found it!

Sing it sister!

Quote

But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.

Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.

But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves.

Yep...sounds just like Scientology, EST, and Lifespring. Hey, the money's great if you can be that disingenuous.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))

And here is the confirmation that you do not know anything about evolution, thank you.

Every being that lived to procreate was transitional, and so are you. Every fossil is transitional, but some stand out because they show more clearly than others where they came from and where they will lead to. They are snapshots of incremental change.

Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

Jerry,

Not all particles are entangled. Your QM argument lacks coherence.

Tracy:

Particles that are created at the same time in the same system become entangled. Did the big bang not create all particles in this universe at the same time? With me on that?

Just because particles are created at the same time does not mean they are entangled. It depends on the state vector and its time evolution.

Some particles were made today. We call them photons, and they enable those with eyes to see. You have eyes but do not see.

QED.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find. Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistanceby Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.

What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?

Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.

You said evolution is not contested, I gave a link to an Institute for Creation Research (guffaw!) article.

Simple enough for you?

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))

So, it is a fact that man has become increasingly taller since the 1600s. He has grown approximately 1.5 inches per century over that time period. How tall do you think he will be in 50,000 years?

DARWINIST: He will be 70 feet, six inches!!!Guy with common sense....Oh, it's doubtful that he will grow much taller as genetic makeup will eventually limit that growth.

******************************************

My wife has been on a diet. She has lost 3 pounds per week for the past month. How much will she lose if she stays on that diet for life?

DARWINIST: She will weigh exactly minus 200 pounds!Guy with common sense: Oh, her metabolism will level all that out. She won't lose much more weight.

****************************************

I have been bench pressing and I've increased my ability to benchpress by about 10 pounds a week for the last 3 months...how much will I be able to press in 40 years?

Darwinist: You'll be able to benchpress 6 tons!Guy with common sense..............................Well......you get the idea...:))))

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))

And here is the confirmation that you do not know anything about evolution, thank you.

Every being that lived to procreate was transitional, and so are you. Every fossil is transitional, but some stand out because they show more clearly than others where they came from and where they will lead to. They are snapshots of incremental change.

You might want to read a textbook, that helps.

No, I had rather have you back up your arguments with some evidence, please. That would be most helpful

Quantum theory seemed to come together in the late 1920s when Heisenberg's uncertainty principle began to be accepted and debated by the greats of science. The uncertainty principle states, 'the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.'

This is sometimes stated a bit differently as the momentum of a particle is the product of its mass and velocity, however, its meaning doesn't change: the action of measuring one quality of a particle, be it its velocity, its mass, or its position, causes the other qualities to blur into something unknowable.

With a casual glance at this concept one might draw the conclusion this is due to lack of technology in precise particle measurement, but this is not the case. The blurring of these properties is a fundamental property of nature.

As Heisenberg's work began to be diffused throughout the scientific community, many scientists were left scratching their heads. Some seemed to feel that maybe the entire field of quantum mechanics had somehow "missed the point." Albert Einstein was one of those and being Einstein, he was not shy about routinely pointing out his opinions; "God does not play dice with the universe." He once stated to Niels Bohr. Bohr shot back, "Don't tell God what to do." Bohr meant by this that the universe we live in abides by quantum laws and inherent uncertainty, whether Einstein liked it or not! Werner Heisenberg began collaborating with Niels Bohr on this strange, new concept in Copenhagen, Denmark around 1927 and came up with other underlying theories, one of which was termed the Copenhagen Interpretation named after Bohr's place of birth. Bohr and Heisenberg took the uncertainty principle and extended the probabilistic interpretation of the wave-function, proposed earlier by Max Born.

The Copenhagen Interpretation was their attempt to answer some perplexing questions which arose as a result of the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics and how the role of an observer in that process seemed to change what could, and could not be accurately measured considering particles and the waves they produce.

Heisenberg had written in his original paper: "I believe that the existence of the classical 'path' [of a particle] can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it." Interesting. But was it true?[insertion mine]

English scientist Thomas Young in the 1800s had attempted to resolve the question of whether light was really particles (the "corpuscular" theory), or was comprised of 'waves traveling through some ether,' much as sound waves travel in air. Interference patterns that were observed in the original experiment questioned the corpuscular theory; and the wave theory of light dominated well into the early 20th century, when evidence began to emerge which seemed instead to support the particle theory of light.

Young's famous double-slit experiment became a classic gedanken experiment (thought experiment) for its efficiency in articulating some of the many conundrums of quantum mechanics. But is was not until the 20th century that the double slit experiment was performed on individual particles and once it was, particle physicists began to catch a glimpse into a strange quantum world where particles themselves seem to interact with information and Heisenberg's observer hypothesis came to the surface.

Could it be true that particles may know when we are and when we are not, looking at them? Can particles exhibit the intelligence to know that we're going to look at them before the event actually occurs? In other words can particles look into the future and prophesy what will happen before it does? There are documented experiments conducted by prestigious universities that actually imply this.

Energy and matter are so closely related that many times we can view energy either as a wave or a particle and in fact it is both. Some examples are light waves which can be viewed as either waves of light or flowing photons and electricity can be measured by the frequency of the wave or by flowing electrons. Feynman pointed out, one of the strangest things about quantum-mechanical description of an object is its duality: quantum objects are neither particles nor waves. They are neither, yet they are both? Kind of, and if you think you hear the weirdness siren sounding right now, you are correct but this is cool enough to put up with for a bit.

The double-slit experiment consists of letting light diffract through two slits in a box producing patterns on a monitor, plate or a piece of film. When the light hits the film, it leaves a spot, so we can actually see where distinct photons hit the back of the box. One can view the image and see the basic concept .

Our light source is going to be a gun that shoots light through the opening of the box. If we turn the light gun on high, where it is shooting a great deal of light at once, and shine it toward the opening, we will see an interference pattern on the monitor, patterns of light and dark showing where light waves interfere with each other to the point that certain parts of the waves (where crests meets crests) work to enhance both waves and where other parts of the waves (where crests meets troughs) serve to cancel one another out.

Let's turn our light-gun down to the point we are only shooting one photon at a time with each pull of the trigger. I'm going to cover one of the two slits with opaque tape that photons cannot penetrate and shoot a burst of photons into the opening. We will discover the film will record a clump of individual particles in a pattern much like bullets would make when shooting a bull's eye target and it will record them behind the open slit as we would expect. If we remove the tape from that slit and place it over the other one, the same thing happens. This pattern would be fully expected, since we are shooting individual particles, not waves of light.

Let's try it a different way. I will shoot one photon at a time into the box when both slits are open and the results are quite astounding. Now the photons begin to build up the interference pattern identical to the scenario that was recorded when we imported massive photons, as in a bright light.

If I cover one slit and shoot again, this interference pattern disappears. What is happening here? The same photon seems to be going through both slits at the same time. This is confusing me because I don't understand how a single photon can interfere with itself, or for that matter, how an individual particle can go through two holes at the same time.

Next I place a detector at each slit to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the film so I can understand what is happening. But when the experiment is arranged in this way, the interference pattern disappears -- for reasons still not well understood, when the photon is not being observed, it acts as a wave but when detectors are placed at each slit to observe the photon, the wave function collapses and it acts only as a single particle!

Thus, how the particle behaves seems to depend on whether that particle is being observed or not. How do particles know when they are, or are not being observed?

Theoretical physicist John Wheeler of Princeton took the double slit experiment a step further. His version is called the 'delayed choice experiment.' In the above experiment, the physicist's choice whether to observe the particle or not seems to cause the photon to choose between acting like a wave or a particle. What would happen, Wheeler mused, if the researcher could devise a system where the photon was observed only after it had passed the two slits but before it hit the monitor at the back of the box?

If one uses common sense to reason Wheeler's question through (if there is such a thing as common sense in quantum mechanics), it would seem that if the physicist doesn't observe the particle before it goes through the slits, the particle will not know it is being observed and will act like a wave, go through both the slits at once and cause the interference.

Nope. According to independent experiments carried out by the University of Maryland and the University of Munich the photon acts like a single particle and goes through only one slit as if it had known that it was going to be observed at some point in the future. Of course, once the detector is removed from the system, the particle then 'decides' to go through both slits again, interferes with itself, and the monitor shows the interference pattern.

These experiments pose many questions about the quantum aspect of our universe. How could 'dumb' particles know that observers will be watching them in the future? Or better yet, do the observers actually alter the behavior of the particles in the past by observing them in the present? As it must be to some readers, this is quite maddening to scientists who have had enough trouble understanding the quantum world without having to deal with mysterious, intelligent and even prophesying particles.

With the passage of time the Copenhagen Interpretation has been more specifically refined with this concept known as the collapse of the wave-function. The Copenhagen Interpretation draws distinction between the observer and what is observed; when there is no observer in a system, the system seems to evolve deterministically according to wave equations, but when an observer is present, the wave-function in the system "collapses" to the observed state.

Of course, just as ID makes no attempt to discern a designer, the Copenhagen Interpretation states the observer has special status in that a system must be observed in order to exist as individual particles but it cannot explain or identify the observer itself, nor does it attempt to.

John Gribbons writes: "They say, according to the standard interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation), that nothing is real unless you look at it, that an electron (say) exists only as a wave of probability, called a wave function, which collapses into reality when it is measured, and promptly dissolves into unreality when you stop looking at it."

Perhaps the most difficult dilemma to explain is the fact that individual particles such as photons, electrons and neutrinos are a very real part of our universe and yet to also understand that if photons are to be particles rather than waves as they sometimes are, it requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave-function--to make the reality of our universe, real indeed. It seems that for our universe to exist as it does at all, the universe must be observed by a supreme, conscious observer. Of course, waves also exist in our universe but if this is truly a conscious observer, then it requires little imagination to understand this observer could choose to observe, or not to observe a particular system in order to achieve a desired result. But who/what might this observer be?

Enter chairman of the Mathematical Physics Department at Tulane University, world renowned cosmologist and avid atheist, Frank Tipler. Actually, I must clarify that although Tipler was once a confessed atheist, through his research in physics he has shown mathematical evidence for this supreme observer to exist and today seems very much the ardent (and one of my favorite) ID theorists. Tipler shows this supreme observer to be quantum mechanics acting within the universe. He writes: "I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Tipler mathematically constructs a single pocket of increasingly higher level organization evolving to the ultimate Omega Point which he implies to be a god of quantum mechanics that acts as an intelligent observer from the future backward to the past. Tipler's advanced math and physics are well beyond the scope of this paper, however, I would encourage the interested reader to research this further as it is quite fascinating.

My point with introducing the work of Young, Heisenberg, Bohr, Tipler, Feynman, Wheeler and others is that the more temporal humans learn scientifically about the universe around us, the easier it becomes for any free-thinking person, regardless of religious beliefs, to accept and fully embrace intelligent design. And once realizing that intelligent design is not based on religious beliefs then metaphysics become a moot point and we can look directly at science to discover a Supreme Observer as explained in the post above.

This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.

1) Common sense really doesn't work in science. That's why we have evidence and statistical data. What's yours?

2) Do you look EXACTLY like your parents? Do you have exactly the same genes as your parents?

Do your children look EXACTLY like you? Do they have EXACTLY the same genes as you?

Since the answer to these questions is all "No", then you are transitional between your parents and you children.

Finally, what is a transitional fossil? It is not a fossil that is a direct descendant of another fossil. It is impossible to tell if one fossil is directly descended from another fossil. What you do is examine the characteristics.

For example, one fossil has legs that are 120 centimeters long. Another fossil with almost no other differences has legs that are 100 centimeters long and they are separated by 15 million years. A third fossil has legs that are 60 centimeter longs and it's dated 30 million years later.

Do you see a trend.

Now let's compare to your analogy (I hate analogies). The woman loses weight and loses weight and will eventually die from lack of nutrients and body mass. Similarly the fossils I described above, the legs keep getting smaller and smaller until the legs finally disappear.

You might look up evolution of whales.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

1) Common sense really doesn't work in science. That's why we have evidence and statistical data. What's yours?

I'm sorry, evidence and statistical data for what?

Quote

2) Do you look EXACTLY like your parents? Do you have exactly the same genes as your parents?

Do your children look EXACTLY like you? Do they have EXACTLY the same genes as you?

No, due to the recombination of both of their DNA I would not expect any of this.

Quote

Since the answer to these questions is all "No", then you are transitional between your parents and you children.

So, you think I am evolving into my children? Scary...LOL

Quote

Finally, what is a transitional fossil? It is not a fossil that is a direct descendant of another fossil. It is impossible to tell if one fossil is directly descended from another fossil. What you do is examine the characteristics.

For example, one fossil has legs that are 120 centimeters long. Another fossil with almost no other differences has legs that are 100 centimeters long and they are separated by 15 million years. A third fossil has legs that are 60 centimeter longs and it's dated 30 million years later.

Do you see a trend.

No, but you would see a trend. I would probably just think I found three different fossils with different leg lengths as we see in real life organisms. I certainly would not feel I had enough data to draw scientific conclusions.

Quote

Now let's compare to your analogy (I hate analogies). The woman loses weight and loses weight and will eventually die from lack of nutrients and body mass. Similarly the fossils I described above, the legs keep getting smaller and smaller until the legs finally disappear.

And then how does she pass that trait on ter her offspring...:)) Into Lamarkianism much?? :)))))

1) Common sense really doesn't work in science. That's why we have evidence and statistical data. What's yours?

I'm sorry, evidence and statistical data for what?

Science. It's sure not ID that has evidence and statistical data.

Quote

Quote

2) Do you look EXACTLY like your parents? Do you have exactly the same genes as your parents?

Do your children look EXACTLY like you? Do they have EXACTLY the same genes as you?

No, due to the recombination of both of their DNA I would not expect any of this.

Quote

Since the answer to these questions is all "No", then you are transitional between your parents and you children.

So, you think I am evolving into my children? Scary...LOL

Wow. You really don't know shit about evolution do you. And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'. You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

POPULATIONS evolve. When your children were born, the allele frequency of the entire human population altered (very little, but measurable). That's evolution, which, I believe, you agree with.

Quote

Quote

Finally, what is a transitional fossil? It is not a fossil that is a direct descendant of another fossil. It is impossible to tell if one fossil is directly descended from another fossil. What you do is examine the characteristics.

For example, one fossil has legs that are 120 centimeters long. Another fossil with almost no other differences has legs that are 100 centimeters long and they are separated by 15 million years. A third fossil has legs that are 60 centimeter longs and it's dated 30 million years later.

Do you see a trend.

No, but you would see a trend. I would probably just think I found three different fossils with different leg lengths as we see in real life organisms. I certainly would not feel I had enough data to draw scientific conclusions.

Yes, that's what I said "trend" and not "scientific conclusion". For it to be a scientific conclusion we would need to statistically analyze all the data... which was done in the case of whales. Again, I suggest you actually research the article.

I know you won't find evidence that convinces you because you are immune to evidence. But at least you wouldn't be ignorant of how science actually works.

Quote

Quote

Now let's compare to your analogy (I hate analogies). The woman loses weight and loses weight and will eventually die from lack of nutrients and body mass. Similarly the fossils I described above, the legs keep getting smaller and smaller until the legs finally disappear.

And then how does she pass that trait on ter her offspring...:)) Into Lamarkianism much?? :)))))

And again, strawman. Attacking a made up argument that I didn't use.

Did you know that traits like leg-length and even tendency to weight gain are GENETIC.

Seriously?You might look up evolution of whales.[/quote]Just count the fallacies...

Edited by OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,16:32

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I trust I don't need to provide a link, if you just would take a little time off your high-strung cosmology-QM-ID-& all the rest excursion for some down to earth study:

Science Daily,Fossils and ruins - evolution.

You will find pages of news from evolution research, all from this very year 2012CE.

Then come back an tell us that you beat 100's of scientists with a solid margin because you are much smarter than all of them.

Since IANAS, I depend on people like you to show me the way to enlightenment, seeing as scientists are rather dim, science is off on a totally wrong direction and I'll be going to hell.

You wouldn't want that to happen to a nice old man like me, would you?

I'm afraid I've studied it all at one time or another. If I didn't run across it in college, I probably looked into it more than once or twice on my own accord.

Yet, I don't consider myself any smarter than anyone else, probably average.....however, I may be better informed in my areas of interest than most are, but isn't that true with all of us?

So, are you really a nice man? Careful....Santa is watching and the time is near..........Santa is omnipresent due to quantum superpositioning. He is in all states at all times...kinda like a decaying radioactive trigger in cat's box.

I trust I don't need to provide a link, if you just would take a little time off your high-strung cosmology-QM-ID-& all the rest excursion for some down to earth study:

Science Daily,Fossils and ruins - evolution.

You will find pages of news from evolution research, all from this very year 2012CE.

Then come back an tell us that you beat 100's of scientists with a solid margin because you are much smarter than all of them.

Since IANAS, I depend on people like you to show me the way to enlightenment, seeing as scientists are rather dim, science is off on a totally wrong direction and I'll be going to hell.

You wouldn't want that to happen to a nice old man like me, would you?

I'm afraid I've studied it all at one time or another. If I didn't run across it in college, I probably looked into it more than once or twice on my own accord.

Yet, I don't consider myself any smarter than anyone else, probably average.....however, I may be better informed in my areas of interest than most are, but isn't that true with all of us?

So, are you really a nice man? Careful....Santa is watching and the time is near..........Santa is omnipresent due to quantum superpositioning. He is in all states at all times...kinda like a decaying radioactive trigger in cat's box.

Who cares? I'm mean to idiots.

Now, you've ignored a number of direct questions. Do we count that as lying or just avoiding an ugly truth?

Here they are since that was a whole page ago and you seem to have forgotten, instead settling for tone trolling.

Quote

) Cite (or link to) any 10 peer-reviewed papers that support ID.

2) CSI is probability mathematics now? What is the probability that I was designed then? how do you know? Calculate my probability.

3) But we know the LIMITS of the designer of a subway. If you don't know the limits of the designer, then you just assume that it can do anything (which you do). Does the designer have any limits? If yes, why? How do you know? If not, why? How do you know? Can the designer create anything? How do you know?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Quantum theory seemed to come together in the late 1920s when Heisenberg's uncertainty principle began to be accepted and debated by the greats of science. The uncertainty principle states, 'the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.'

you can find a Jerry Don thread, preceded by Glenn Morton* calling good old Jerry Don a pantheist and not a True Christian™

i had to laugh at someone typing this out and being surrious bout it

Quote

June 5th 2005, 08:24 PM -snip-I get lost in the math in there myself (unless coached). So let me see if I can cut to the chase. Do you agree that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP) is science? If so, you must also agree that it takes an observer to collapse the wave function. Do you agree with his original 1920s paper which basically started quantum mechanics?

Obviously it does not, nor is that what the word "pantheism" implies. When you say things like: "This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is," it's quite obvious that you're explicitly denying that this proves a specific God-name. (As a side note, Jerry, generally speaking there is no specific "god of pantheism.")

But the observer is something is it not? If it wasn't, everything you interact with would be waves. The keyboard you are typing on right now would be waves and your hand would just go through it and hit the desk below it. How do you explain all the double slit experiments that show experimentally it takes an observer to collapse the wave function? I'm not letting you past this until you address it.

However, when you simultaneously assert that quantum particles may be aware of being observed, and assert a "Prime Observer," you are asserting functional pantheism, where all quantum particles partake of the nature of the "Prime Observer."

But I do not just aimlessly assert this. I quote scientific experiments and Tipler's mathematical physics which show an observer. Yet you just seem to want to brush all this off as if it were ME that invented this stuff. Hey, don't kill the messenger, I'm just quoting some (very well known) scientists here. :wink:

Now, don't get me wrong, Jerry--I'm a Wiccan, and that kind of thing is right up my alley. I've been asserting for years that all of Creation partakes of the nature of the Creator, and frankly if science does determine that quantum particles are somehow aware of being observed, I'm gonna make the biggest "I told you so" post you've ever seen. But please do not take it as an attack if I call a spade a spade.

Well, I've just offered you experimental evidence that it does. You have yet to address any of the science I've posted. Why? Perhaps the Wiccan may find a new mantra here? You never know. :smile:

>mfw someone is a wiccan near me

* aint it

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,23:06

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))

So, it is a fact that man has become increasingly taller since the 1600s. He has grown approximately 1.5 inches per century over that time period. How tall do you think he will be in 50,000 years?

DARWINIST: He will be 70 feet, six inches!!!Guy with common sense....Oh, it's doubtful that he will grow much taller as genetic makeup will eventually limit that growth.

******************************************

My wife has been on a diet. She has lost 3 pounds per week for the past month. How much will she lose if she stays on that diet for life?

DARWINIST: She will weigh exactly minus 200 pounds!Guy with common sense: Oh, her metabolism will level all that out. She won't lose much more weight.

****************************************

I have been bench pressing and I've increased my ability to benchpress by about 10 pounds a week for the last 3 months...how much will I be able to press in 40 years?

Darwinist: You'll be able to benchpress 6 tons!Guy with common sense..............................Well......you get the idea...:))))

Your argument has been reduced to a comic strip characterization, and you answer that with more inanity, and irrelevant inanity at that.

Why do you accept small changes over a relatively short period of time, but not big changes in the long run?

Bonus question: If "genetic makeup," whatever that means, will prevent humans from being 70 feet tall, what is the primary limiting factor, and how will it be genetically expressed?

Edit: moar better spelling

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

orly? Because if I wrote that mess on an exam, I'm pretty sure every single one of my profs would have a go at kicking me right in the fucking balls, repeatedly, until I was off the campus.

And then they'd throw my textbooks (which do not define evolution that way) at my head.

And I'd say I'm pretty up-to-date with definitions of evolution.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Yes, many posters on the Web seem hate filled for anyone in the human race that doesn't agree with them intellectually, but it's OK, I'm used to it. I'm in the full-time ministry to homeless people on the streets--in a major U.S. city.....druggies......gangbangers.........people that hate society....no big deal to me, It's sad that these people never have a sunshiny day, but I suppose it's very much a part of modern society and there's little I can do about it.

Quote

Now, you've ignored a number of direct questions. Do we count that as lying or just avoiding an ugly truth?

Here they are since that was a whole page ago and you seem to have forgotten, instead settling for tone trolling.

I actually call it going off topic. I have yet to have ANYONE seriously address much of anything I've posted. Debate if you wish, but I don't answer what you believe to be clever riddles, off-topic challenges or silly questions not at all related to anything posted.

As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

The deal is......you must not understand CSI in its basics as common sense should tell you that if ONE protein is CSI, then the billions that comprise you when considered together in the same system would be astronomical.....Please go back and read the other thread in detail.....I shouldn't HAVE to point out the obvious to you.

Quote

But we know the LIMITS of the designer of a subway. If you don't know the limits of the designer, then you just assume that it can do anything (which you do). Does the designer have any limits? If yes, why? How do you know? If not, why? How do you know? Can the designer create anything? How do you know?

You completely miss the point. The subject is identification of a given designer. Why is that important when the only question we are pondering is if something is, or is not designed. Did it occur naturally or was it designed?

Your logic here is similar to taking your final in college algebra and becoming so confused that you cannot solve any problems because you cannot remember the name of the person who wrote the textbook. It's just Silly and illogical.

Also....I'm learning that you do not read the posts.....How did you MISS that long post above where I IDENTIFY the designer in detail.....

I'm not one to shy away from the details of this stuff, yet you act like I never address it and just come back with the same, tired questions again.

Quantum theory seemed to come together in the late 1920s when Heisenberg's uncertainty principle began to be accepted and debated by the greats of science. The uncertainty principle states, 'the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.'

you can find a Jerry Don thread, preceded by Glenn Morton* calling good old Jerry Don a pantheist and not a True Christian™

i had to laugh at someone typing this out and being surrious bout it

Quote

June 5th 2005, 08:24 PM -snip-I get lost in the math in there myself (unless coached). So let me see if I can cut to the chase. Do you agree that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP) is science? If so, you must also agree that it takes an observer to collapse the wave function. Do you agree with his original 1920s paper which basically started quantum mechanics?

Obviously it does not, nor is that what the word "pantheism" implies. When you say things like: "This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is," it's quite obvious that you're explicitly denying that this proves a specific God-name. (As a side note, Jerry, generally speaking there is no specific "god of pantheism.")

But the observer is something is it not? If it wasn't, everything you interact with would be waves. The keyboard you are typing on right now would be waves and your hand would just go through it and hit the desk below it. How do you explain all the double slit experiments that show experimentally it takes an observer to collapse the wave function? I'm not letting you past this until you address it.

However, when you simultaneously assert that quantum particles may be aware of being observed, and assert a "Prime Observer," you are asserting functional pantheism, where all quantum particles partake of the nature of the "Prime Observer."

But I do not just aimlessly assert this. I quote scientific experiments and Tipler's mathematical physics which show an observer. Yet you just seem to want to brush all this off as if it were ME that invented this stuff. Hey, don't kill the messenger, I'm just quoting some (very well known) scientists here. :wink:

Now, don't get me wrong, Jerry--I'm a Wiccan, and that kind of thing is right up my alley. I've been asserting for years that all of Creation partakes of the nature of the Creator, and frankly if science does determine that quantum particles are somehow aware of being observed, I'm gonna make the biggest "I told you so" post you've ever seen. But please do not take it as an attack if I call a spade a spade.

Well, I've just offered you experimental evidence that it does. You have yet to address any of the science I've posted. Why? Perhaps the Wiccan may find a new mantra here? You never know. :smile:

>mfw someone is a wiccan near me

* aint it

Haven't read that thread, but just for the record, I am not a Pantheist or Panentheist........

Wow. You really don't know shit about evolution do you. And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'. You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Wow. You really don't know shit about evolution do you. And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'. You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Well, yet another proof that you don't know what evolution means.

Individuals don't evolve. They develop according to the genetic material they inherited from their parents. If their own genetic material happens to experience a mutation during their lifetime - too late for them, although not too late for their children. If that mutation is harmless or beneficial given the environment at that time, it has a good chance to survive in and with the descendants.

In fact this is a verrrry much simplified explanation, I hope my learned friends will correct me if I made mistakes.

As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

yes, please do.

because this

Quote

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

is unlike any of the calculations that all of the other retards have come up with. And while that is not unexpected, it would still be hilarious for you to attempt to justify. Because you won't

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Yes, many posters on the Web seem hate filled for anyone in the human race that doesn't agree with them intellectually, but it's OK, I'm used to it. I'm in the full-time ministry to homeless people on the streets--in a major U.S. city.....druggies......gangbangers.........people that hate society....no big deal to me, It's sad that these people never have a sunshiny day, but I suppose it's very much a part of modern society and there's little I can do about it.

Quote

Now, you've ignored a number of direct questions. Do we count that as lying or just avoiding an ugly truth?

Here they are since that was a whole page ago and you seem to have forgotten, instead settling for tone trolling.

I actually call it going off topic. I have yet to have ANYONE seriously address much of anything I've posted. Debate if you wish, but I don't answer what you believe to be clever riddles, off-topic challenges or silly questions not at all related to anything posted.

As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

The deal is......you must not understand CSI in its basics as common sense should tell you that if ONE protein is CSI, then the billions that comprise you when considered together in the same system would be astronomical.....Please go back and read the other thread in detail.....I shouldn't HAVE to point out the obvious to you.

Quote

But we know the LIMITS of the designer of a subway. If you don't know the limits of the designer, then you just assume that it can do anything (which you do). Does the designer have any limits? If yes, why? How do you know? If not, why? How do you know? Can the designer create anything? How do you know?

You completely miss the point. The subject is identification of a given designer. Why is that important when the only question we are pondering is if something is, or is not designed. Did it occur naturally or was it designed?

Your logic here is similar to taking your final in college algebra and becoming so confused that you cannot solve any problems because you cannot remember the name of the person who wrote the textbook. It's just Silly and illogical.

Also....I'm learning that you do not read the posts.....How did you MISS that long post above where I IDENTIFY the designer in detail.....

I'm not one to shy away from the details of this stuff, yet you act like I never address it and just come back with the same, tired questions again.

But......I haven't given up on you....*wink*

Yes, I do want you to post a link directly to it. Because I've read every post on this forum for over two years and despite hundreds of repeated requests, not a single creationist has ever showed and example of a calculation of CSI. Nor have they ever defined what they are measuring/calculating and what units they are using.

You say, IRRC, that CSI is a probability. But that makes no sense when compared to Dembskis Upper Probability Bound of 500 bits. You don't measure probability in bits.

I don't want an 'estimate' I want an actual calculation. You tell me what you want. Do you want an organism, a protein sequence, a genome, a gene, an allele? What. Tell me what you want, I'll provide it and you calculate showing your work.

Better yet, you explain, in detail how to do the calculation and then I'll provide one of the above, we'll both do the work and see if we get the same answer. How about that?

Finally, if I don't understand CSI, it's because people like you absolutely suck at explaining it. I've read Dembski, I've talked to dozens of pro-ID people and not a single one of them could explain the process that you are about to. So, I await with baited breath for you to do the one thing that no one has ever done before.

Now, about the designer. Let me ask you something. If I give you two sequences of data. One totally random, the other specifically designed (by a human)... let's say a protein sequence.

Can CSI or any ID principle tell the difference between them? I've asked this question for years as well and no one, not one single pro-ID person has ever stepped up and attempted this.

Why is it important? Because if you can't tell the difference between random and designed, how can you possible tell the difference between intelligent design and non-intelligent design?

It's not silly and illogical. It's the fundamental function of ID claims. "We think that there is a designer because there is evidence of design." Yet that evidence of design is non-existent.

If you have explained the identity of the designer in detail, then link to it. Who is the designer? How does he do his work? When? How do you know?

I have given up on you. I just want to see how you will evade all these issues again and again.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.

This is your "Detailed" description of the designer? Really?

wow...

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Wow. You really don't know shit about evolution do you. And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'. You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Well, yet another proof that you don't know what evolution means.

Individuals don't evolve. They develop according to the genetic material they inherited from their parents. If their own genetic material happens to experience a mutation during their lifetime - too late for them, although not too late for their children. If that mutation is harmless or beneficial given the environment at that time, it has a good chance to survive in and with the descendants.

In fact this is a verrrry much simplified explanation, I hope my learned friends will correct me if I made mistakes.

I will only add that sexual reproduction allows for things like crossing over, which can present new combinations of alleles and that alleles without a significant survival advantage can survive in the population bey being closely linked to another allele or due to some outside influence (founder effect for example) become fixed in a population.

Since evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population, how do you think an individual evolves?

Basically, the exact same mutation would have to occur in every single cell in the organism's body at roughly the same time... you've been getting your science from Marvel comics again right?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Wow. You really don't know shit about evolution do you. And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'. You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Well, yet another proof that you don't know what evolution means.

Individuals don't evolve. They develop according to the genetic material they inherited from their parents. If their own genetic material happens to experience a mutation during their lifetime - too late for them, although not too late for their children. If that mutation is harmless or beneficial given the environment at that time, it has a good chance to survive in and with the descendants.

In fact this is a verrrry much simplified explanation, I hope my learned friends will correct me if I made mistakes.

OK, so please riddle me this.......a population speciates (that means evolves)....yet, I can choose to pick an individual within that population, examine that individual and it would NOT have speciated? Then if I examine every individual within that population and none have speciated, how can it be said that the population speciated?

As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

yes, please do.

because this

Quote

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

is unlike any of the calculations that all of the other retards have come up with. And while that is not unexpected, it would still be hilarious for you to attempt to justify. Because you won't

Here guys, now I'm not going to post the same things over and over and then rehash them but this one time...Please read the posts:

If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.

Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100). But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads. Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads? They’re still the same 1:(.5^100). I’m not getting all heads, but with odds against me of getting them, I’m not surprised at the result.

So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100). So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen.

The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

Proteins from which all of life is based are formed from amino acids. And these proteins are usually chains of from 50 to 50,000 amino acids.

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.

Wow. You really don't know shit about evolution do you. And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'. You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

OK....Individuals don't evolve...individuals don't evolve...but I have a question:

How do populations evolve without the individuals within it ALSO evolving????

Well, yet another proof that you don't know what evolution means.

Individuals don't evolve. They develop according to the genetic material they inherited from their parents. If their own genetic material happens to experience a mutation during their lifetime - too late for them, although not too late for their children. If that mutation is harmless or beneficial given the environment at that time, it has a good chance to survive in and with the descendants.

In fact this is a verrrry much simplified explanation, I hope my learned friends will correct me if I made mistakes.

OK, so please riddle me this.......a population speciates (that means evolves)....yet, I can choose to pick an individual within that population, examine that individual and it would NOT have speciated? Then if I examine every individual within that population and none have speciated, how can it be said that the population speciated?

LOL...You guys simply aren't making sense....

Because you aren't listening...

speciation does not equal evolution.

Sigh, let's try again.

When I was born, the human race evolved. This occurred because (among other things), the number of B blood type alleles increased by one and the number of A blood type alleles increased by one in the entire human population.

The frequency of the A allele and the B allele changed in the population.

That's evolution.

When I die, the frequency of alleles will change again (minus 1 A and minus 1 B). When my child was born, the frequency of B alleles and the frequency of O alleles changed as well. That is what evolution is in the strictest sense.

O is the most common blood type allele. But let's say that you have a small population of people, who, for whatever reason, leave the Earth to setup a new population of humans. Now, because of the difficulty of spaceflight, from now until some future time, we have two SEPARATE populations of humans. But the colony population was a little weird. For whatever reason, that population has no type "O" blood alleles. Call it random chance, call it bias against "O" blood types, whatever.

This is called the founder effect. The type "O" allele doesn't exist in the new population of humans.

Now, on the Earth, "O" becomes more and more common. Over time, the A and B blood types disappear entirely. Statistically unlikely, but I'm trying to teach you things here. So, we have a population of humans with only type O blood and another population without type O alleles.

Now, let's say that there is some difficulty in mating between O people and A or B people. Something similar to the RH factor (which can be treated medically now, but caused a lot of infant (and others) deaths before SCIENCE figured it out).

So, we have these two populations that, because of biochemical incompatibility, cannot interbreed anymore. NOW, we have another species of human.

Evolution does not determine that new species arise. Evolution is not dependent on new species arising. However, new species is an artifact of changes in the allele frequency in the population, especially when you get two populations of the same species that (for whatever reason) have breeding issues.

What I just described is allopatric speciation. There are other forms of speciation.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.

This is your "Detailed" description of the designer? Really?

wow...

Yes, really....why don't you cease from invoking the argument from incredulity every other post and begin to debate the tenets of my postulations?

This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.

This is your "Detailed" description of the designer? Really?

wow...

Yes, really....why don't you cease from invoking the argument from incredulity every other post and begin to debate the tenets of my postulations?

I've been doing that for a while now. You keep ignoring them.

I made the post in this reference because you claimed to have made a "detailed" description of the designer. Your "detailed" description is "it could be anything or everything depending on how or what you are or think".

You and I have very different definitions of "detailed".

Which is our fundamental problem when talking with creationists. You don't use words the same way that scientists do. We're scientists around here. Our buddy Gary, in another thread, is attempted to redefine "intelligence" to mean "any reaction to any stimulus". So he can justify talking about molecular intelligence and how intelligent bacteria can alter their genome.

Here's what I would expect from a detailed description of something:1) name/designation2) type/species3) age/lifespan4) physical description or a description of how it interacts with the physical world if it is non-physical5) Where I can find or observe it6) How you know all this stuff

Is your 'calculation' of CSI at your level of detailed or my level of detailed?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

OK, so please riddle me this.......a population speciates (that means evolves)....yet, I can choose to pick an individual within that population, examine that individual and it would NOT have speciated? Then if I examine every individual within that population and none have speciated, how can it be said that the population speciated?

LOL...You guys simply aren't making sense....

If I had a Euro for each time you show your ignorance about evolution, by now I had my Christmas turkey paid.

Here, learn about the difference between evolution and speciation:

Quote

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or "cladogenesis," as opposed to "anagenesis" or "phyletic evolution" occurring within lineages.[1][2]

As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

yes, please do.

because this

Quote

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

is unlike any of the calculations that all of the other retards have come up with. And while that is not unexpected, it would still be hilarious for you to attempt to justify. Because you won't

Here guys, now I'm not going to post the same things over and over and then rehash them but this one time...Please read the posts:

If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.

Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100). But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads. Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads? They’re still the same 1:(.5^100). I’m not getting all heads, but with odds against me of getting them, I’m not surprised at the result.

So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100). So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen.

The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

Proteins from which all of life is based are formed from amino acids. And these proteins are usually chains of from 50 to 50,000 amino acids.

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.

You have already been given a long list of problems with this "calculation" of a protein.

How do you deal with the tendency of some amino acids to want to bond with certain other amino acids more than other amino acids?

How do you deal with the simple fact that you are not describing the process of protein generation at all?

How do you deal with the issue that if I expect a oxygen to interact with two specific hydrogen atoms in the entire universe is massively, epically improbable, but the probability of an oxygen reacting with ANY two hydrogen atoms approaches 1? In other words, there appears to be no consideration for the actual distribution of amino acids in a particular "neighborhood". If we want to have a chemical reaction occur in a nebula, it is going to take a lot longer than it would near a hot smoker here on Earth.

What about the problem that you are calculating the probability of a random jumble of amino acids forming a bacteria, when no respectable scientist even considers the possibility that it happened that way?

In other words, your 'calculation' is not only not a calculation, but it's not even wrong. You'd have to take into account thousands of unique variables to even get just to the "wrong" category.

Because, very simply (as has been told you before) THAT IS NOT HOW PROTEINS FORM!

Actually, the odds do change if cells formed, one step at a time starting from simple 5 pentamer ribozymes.

Of course, the final insult is that none of this describes evolution. It's all abiogenesis, which again doesn't happen the way you describe. Because you're quite right, it would be massively improbably for a self-replicating RNA strand to come together from random nucleotides in a sea of organic junk. Which is why, there are steps along the way.

So, yes, I can see you THINK that you have calculated something and you very well may have. Unfortunately for you, what you calculated has absolutely no bearing on how the world actually works.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.

This is your "Detailed" description of the designer? Really?

wow...

Yes, really....why don't you cease from invoking the argument from incredulity every other post and begin to debate the tenets of my postulations?

I've been doing that for a while now. You keep ignoring them.

I made the post in this reference because you claimed to have made a "detailed" description of the designer. Your "detailed" description is "it could be anything or everything depending on how or what you are or think".

You and I have very different definitions of "detailed".

Which is our fundamental problem when talking with creationists. You don't use words the same way that scientists do. We're scientists around here. Our buddy Gary, in another thread, is attempted to redefine "intelligence" to mean "any reaction to any stimulus". So he can justify talking about molecular intelligence and how intelligent bacteria can alter their genome.

Here's what I would expect from a detailed description of something:1) name/designation2) type/species3) age/lifespan4) physical description or a description of how it interacts with the physical world if it is non-physical5) Where I can find or observe it6) How you know all this stuff

Is your 'calculation' of CSI at your level of detailed or my level of detailed?

LOL.....How you could have read that entire post and not understood that quantum mechanics is the designer is beyond me.

So let's get specific with you if you insist:

1) name/designation

THe name is quantum mechanics

2) type/species

quntum mechanics don't have a type or species

3) age/lifespan

It has existed ever since there have been particles in the universe

4) physical description or a description of how it interacts with the physical world if it is non-physical

You might want to read Feynman on QM how QM interacts with the physical world is difficult for one to understand since QM IS the world.

5) Where I can find or observe it

I would suggest experimentally. Double slit or delayed choice experiments are always fun.

This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.

This is your "Detailed" description of the designer? Really?

wow...

Yes, really....why don't you cease from invoking the argument from incredulity every other post and begin to debate the tenets of my postulations?

I've been doing that for a while now. You keep ignoring them.

I made the post in this reference because you claimed to have made a "detailed" description of the designer. Your "detailed" description is "it could be anything or everything depending on how or what you are or think".

You and I have very different definitions of "detailed".

Which is our fundamental problem when talking with creationists. You don't use words the same way that scientists do. We're scientists around here. Our buddy Gary, in another thread, is attempted to redefine "intelligence" to mean "any reaction to any stimulus". So he can justify talking about molecular intelligence and how intelligent bacteria can alter their genome.

Here's what I would expect from a detailed description of something:1) name/designation2) type/species3) age/lifespan4) physical description or a description of how it interacts with the physical world if it is non-physical5) Where I can find or observe it6) How you know all this stuff

Is your 'calculation' of CSI at your level of detailed or my level of detailed?

LOL.....How you could have read that entire post and not understood that quantum mechanics is the designer is beyond me.

So let's get specific with you if you insist:

1) name/designation

THe name is quantum mechanics

2) type/species

quntum mechanics don't have a type or species

3) age/lifespan

It has existed ever since there have been particles in the universe

4) physical description or a description of how it interacts with the physical world if it is non-physical

You might want to read Feynman on QM how QM interacts with the physical world is difficult for one to understand since QM IS the world.

5) Where I can find or observe it

I would suggest experimentally. Double slit or delayed choice experiments are always fun.

6) How you know all this stuff

Stuff seeps into my mind......Kind of like a mental osmosis....:))

Right, so you have no idea and you're just making stuff up. I got that already.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

The compare/contrast examples previously given to you as an exercise for calculations show that your CSI magic trick (or the extemporizing filter or whatever) cannot distinguish signal from noise, and are therefore useless.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Mr Bauer, how about substituting your nebulous concept of QM with "natural laws" being the motor? It would make sense.

If, however, you think QM is a sentient being, making choices about what to implement how and when, then you better try again defining it.

That was rather an astute insight, IMHO.....

The key maybe to understanding the difference is to hone into an intelligence aspect of this particular mantra I'm on.

If you will note the double slit experiments, of particular importance is that the photons/electrons (particles) seem to exhibit intelligence....they KNOW when they are, and when they are not being observed and change their behavior accordingly.

Also, the math of Frank Tipler at Toulane U is just as important as he calculates an intelligence within QM using a different angle. Here we have science....that's mathematics and SCIENCE, not theology or metaphysics suggesting to us that there may be a guiding intelligence within the natural process.

So, if you think that natural processes designed homo sapiens and I think that this may be true but that when we REALLY analyse the processes, we find intelligence within that design, the entire musing demands an obvious question for all of us then to answer:

How far are we NOW off from jointly postulating that humankind is here as a result of Intelligent Design?

If you will note the double slit experiments, of particular importance is that the photons/electrons (particles) seem to exhibit intelligence....they KNOW when they are, and when they are not being observed and change their behavior accordingly.

vs.

Quote

It is a known fact that bacterial genomes change over time. And unless you have a Flying Natural Selection Monster shuffling their nucleotides around with its noodley appendages then it is something that the bacterial genomes (its molecular intelligence) hence the bacteria are themselves capable of.

To paraphrase Dr.3, "it's just god of the gaps restated in the idiom of information theory."

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Wow. You really don't know shit about evolution do you. And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'. You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Wow. You really don't know shit about evolution do you. And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'. You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

yes, please do.

because this

Quote

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

is unlike any of the calculations that all of the other retards have come up with. And while that is not unexpected, it would still be hilarious for you to attempt to justify. Because you won't

Wow. You really don't know shit about evolution do you. And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'. You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Here guys, now I'm not going to post the same things over and over and then rehash them but this one time...Please read the posts:

If you're going to cut-and-paste from one of your past comments, I'll just cut-and-paste the response I posted the first time your verbiage appeared:

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,10:12)

If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.

True. Assuming it's an ungimmicked coin (which I'm going to do all throughout this comment, unless I explicitly state otherwise), there's a 50% chance of that coin coming up heads when it's flipped, and that probability is completely independent of how many other coins may or may not have come up heads when they (those other coins) were flipped.

Quote

Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100).

True. Given 100 unflipped coins, each individual coin of that unflipped 100 has a 50% chance of coming up heads, so the chances of all 100 of those unflipped coins coming up heads, when they're flipped, is, indeed, (1/2)100. And presuming my copy of Maple 7 can be trusted, that works out to a touch under 1:1030.

Quote

But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads.

In that case, you're not talking about 100 unflipped coins. Instead, you're talking about 100 coins, of which 25 have already been flipped and came up heads; another 25 have already been flipped and came up tails; and the remaining 50 are still unflipped. For any one unflipped coin, the probability that it will come up heads is 50%; for any flipped coin that came up tails, the chance of that coin being heads is 0%; for any flipped coin that came up heads, the chance of that coin being heads is 100%.

Quote

Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads?

Zero, because you're now talking about a situation in 25 of those 100 coins have already come up tails, which means it's not possible for all 100 of those coins to come up heads.

Quote

They’re still the same 1:(.5^100).

False, as explained above. But if you believe you're right, I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?

Quote

So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100).

Right, because you've shifted back from 25 flipped coins that came up heads, plus 25 flipped coins that came up tails, plus 50 unflipped coins to 100 unflipped coins.

Quote

So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.

False. If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…

Quote

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

True, and what of it? Seeing as how atoms do, in fact, "bond"—they're famous for it—I'm not sure what the problem is.

Quote

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

Yep. But again, atoms do "bond", so what's your point?

Quote

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And yet, atoms somehow do manage to "bond" anyway. So?

Quote

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

Yes. So what?

Quote

For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Hold it. How did Brewster and Morris come up with this "1067" figure? Citation needed…

Quote

Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen.

Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind. Obvious counterexample: If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.

Quote

The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.Since the remainder of your comment is basically repeating errors I've already called you on, I see no reason to extend this reply any further…

Has anyone ever noticed that creationists behave as if kinetic and thermodynamic issues don't matter when discussing the chemistry involved? It's like they've never heard of catalysts or activation energy.

Has anyone ever noticed that creationists behave as if kinetic and thermodynamic issues don't matter when discussing the chemistry involved? It's like they've never heard of catalysts or activation energy.

All the time. It's probably because they don't understand chemistry or anything else.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind. Obvious counterexample: If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.

This is the simplest possible example for creationists who use the silly UPB argument from large numbers, and consistently demonstrates that the people who use the argument know nothing about probablility and statistics, or do know and are just being dishonest.

Because Billy Bob has been corrected and persists in supporting the argument, dishonesty is the only answer.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

In that case, you're not talking about 100 unflipped coins. Instead, you're talking about 100 coins, of which 25 have already been flipped and came up heads; another 25 have already been flipped and came up tails; and the remaining 50 are still unflipped. For any one unflipped coin, the probability that it will come up heads is 50%; for any flipped coin that came up tails, the chance of that coin being heads is 0%; for any flipped coin that came up heads, the chance of that coin being heads is 100%.

Zero, because you're now talking about a situation in 25 of those 100 coins have already come up tails, which means it's not possible for all 100 of those coins to come up heads.

Thanks for catching that......You're absolutely right and my meaning wasn't clear at all..If I could edit my post I would delete that one line and go to the next...My intentions were a Gedankin experiment wherein: "what if" I reflipped all 100 coins from scratch......the previous flips do not matter at this point anymore because I'm now flipping 100 coins at once....New ones..another system. In that event, the odds of them all coming up heads are 1:(.5^100)

But what is my point in all this coin flipping? Because I ALWAYS (and have in here) receive comments from people who claim that probability math changes if given enough time......it does NOT. Time is simply irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if I flip all the coins within a time period of a few minutes, if I flip one a year or if some deity (Thor or Mithris) flips one every million years or so.....the math is the same.

BTW...You probably already know this, but for the readers, what you are now calculating is the CSI of a system. Good job...LOL

This is a system consisting of coins, however, it could be virtually ANY system, a system of proteins that comprise living tissue such as a cell, flagellum, genome or an entire organism......the mathematical methodology would not change. however, of course, the numbers of possible components would. For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

Quote

I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?

Of course not. Your logic is faulty here (or maybe you're playing mind games with me (which is OK because I do this all the time.....) but another purpose for my lengthy diatribe leading up to final 100 coin flip is to show that regardless of how many coins were previously flipped, the odds of any ONE coin coming up heads or tails is always 50/50.

People often become confused by systems......that is very important in understanding ID (and also thermodynamics if we later go there).

What system am I studying or calculating--the 100 coin system flipped together, or the system of just the single coin I am presently flipping? It makes all the difference in the world because the figures you plug in and final calculation of the math will be quite different.

Quote

If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.

Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…

I would be glad to do this with you because you are helping me take my coin analogy a step further. Why don't we just flip each coin 4 or 5 times until it comes up heads, then go to the next. You are correct, one would get 100 heads in that system every time and the probability math goes out the window. But what have we done?

We have added intelligence into the system. A Conscious Observer selects the desired outcome of each coin throw in order to construct (create) an ultimate system that it desires to exist.

Welcome to Intelligent Design....*wink*

Quote

Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind.

That's not correct.....don't forget that Dembski is a mathematician and I named a few others including Borel. If you are going to claim otherwise, I need names.

After looking, I no longer have the Brewster/Morris reference on this computer.....Just disregard that and go with Borel/Dembski...That should cause you no grief.

Quote

If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.

This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so. Why?

Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

It becomes a whole 'nuther ballgame.

Quote

I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.Since the remainder of your comment is basically repeating errors I've already called you on, I see no reason to extend this reply any further…

I'm not positive what you disagreeing with here. That the smallest bacterium I'm aware of consists of about 500 proteins?

If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.

This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so. Why?

Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

It becomes a whole 'nuther ballgame.

In order for this rebuttle to be relevant, you have to admit that your argument from probability assumes its own conclusion.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so. Why?

Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

It becomes a whole 'nuther ballgame.

If you assume the universe was created with the specific aim of producing, some 13 billion years later, a nondescript spiral galaxy with a small planet containing a bipedal ape called called Jerry Don Bauer, and having that ape spew innumerate, scientifically illiterate nonsense on a website, you'd have a point.

If you have any evidence to support that assumption, you have yet to present it.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?

For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?

The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.

But, I think I know where you are wanting to go and I would encourage you to expand your mind on this and take the discussion further.

Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.

More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics?

Of course it does you dolt. I take it you've never played draw poker.

Which hand had the greater probability of holding a flush?

a) a straight 5 card deal.

b) a 5 card deal with added 'selection' of up to 3 discards and redraws.

The probability of a particular result from a feedback system is always going to depend on the effects of the feedback. Your idiotic model for protein formation totally ignores any selection feedback, or the accumulation of traits over time.

--------------JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?

The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.[/quote]

Yes, but the same is not true of amino acids forming chains.

Quote

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.

This is wrong.

Quote

But, I think I know where you are wanting to go and I would encourage you to expand your mind on this and take the discussion further.

Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.

It's SELECTION. When you SELECT things you are eliminating some of the random effects.

For example, let's say a mutation causes a fetus to spontaneously abort after 12 weeks of development. What is the probability of that mutant allele becoming fixed in the population? The answer is zero.

[quote]More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

What do you think?

I've used this analogy before and keep in mind that it is an analogy. This is a tool for teaching to someone who doesn't have the knowledge or background to actually discuss the details of the subject under consideration.

Imagine the World Series of Poker. Ten thousand people come to play poker. But when they arrive, it's announced that this is new version of poker and here's how it's played.

Everyone at the table is dealt one card. After the card is dealt a random generator tells what is the order of hands and cards at that table. For example, Jacks are high and 8s are low with the other cards scattered in between.

Now, the winner of that one card hand advances and every other HAND is eliminated. But the players get to stay. Each player who is eliminated gets to choose between two cards, without looking. One of the cards is the exact same card as the winning player's card. The other is a random card from the deck.

Now each of the players at the table has one card and about 50% will have the winning card. Now, another card is dealt. The random generator again makes up a order of hands and numbers. This time a pair of 3s is highest, next is the ace of spades, followed by a pair of kings, then any 2, etc.

The winner at each table is determined and every other player throws his hand out. This time, every other player selects from three cards. Two are the same as the winner's hand, the third is a random card from the deck. [This would be impossible to play in real life.]

Now, everyone has 2 cards. About 1/3 of the players at the table have the winning hand and 2/3s have one of the winning hand's cards and one random card.

Repeat until everyone has a 5 card hand. Then, everyone gets up and is randomly paired with another player. The random generator does its thing and every pair of players determines who won and who lost. The winner keeps playing, the loser goes home. Repeat starting with a new one card hand.

That's not a perfect analogy to evolution, but it's closer than anything you've said. However, the mathematics should be easy enough to follow.

You see how reproduction plays a part and increases the tendency for winning hands in the entire community. You see how within a population (a table) the winning hand will begin to dominate, unless there is a lucky mutation and a change in the environment (what's a winning hand) that emphasizes it.

For example, by the five card stage every hand has two pair. One pair of red kings and a pair of red threes. Now, one of the players ended up with a mutation in his hand that gave him an additional three. It hasn't mattered because he still has two pair (kings and threes). But suddenly, the environment changes and the full house becomes higher on the winning hand list than the two pair has been. Now, everyone's hand will tend to resemble the full house... but maybe one player picks 3 threes and a king and a 5. He doesn't have a full house anymore, but maybe the environment will change to have 3 of kind more favorable than a full house or two pair. Or maybe he ended up with a flush.

That's kind of how it works.

If you don't calculate the probability USING THE FACTORS AT THE TIME, then you are wasting your time.

Trying to determine the odds of getting a full house when you only have two cards in your hand is impossible. It's not even calculable, the question is meaningless. Like wise, assuming you have a great big pile of amino acids, then trying to determine the odds of getting a flagellal motor is also meaningless. It's the wrong question.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?

The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.[/quote]

OMG that's the funniest thing I've read since "butterfly wombs" . Out of curiosity, and the satisfaction of my mind, have you taken any chemistry courses ever in your life? If so, I would love to hear why you think starting conditions have no impact on chemical reactions.

Quote

But, I think I know where you are wanting to go

I'm betting you don't.

Quote

Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.

More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

What do you think?

I don't know if it's strictly NS but I think some mutations don't lead to offspring that will develop at all, so the offspring that are actually born aren't really going to be a representative sample of all possible mutations a population could have (in terms of mathematical as opposed to real world).

OK...LOL....This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....

It doesn't have to go beyond math and science at this particular junction and you haven't pointed out how science says anything I've said IS wrong. But there is much more to YOU than a mind that only science controls. There is mind and non-mind. I hope you will discover your spiritual nature (maybe you have). Of course, some never will and I feel sorry for their spouses and children that love them. What a battle their loved ones fight and what a sad life they have as individuals, in my experience.

Quote

It's SELECTION. When you SELECT things you are eliminating some of the random effects.

For example, let's say a mutation causes a fetus to spontaneously abort after 12 weeks of development. What is the probability of that mutant allele becoming fixed in the population? The answer is zero.

OK....and....what does this have to do with probability mathematics. Isn't there another fetus somewhere that may not abort and a detrimental mutation becomes fixed into the population? What is your point with this?

Quote

I've used this analogy before and keep in mind that it is an analogy. This is a tool for teaching to someone who doesn't have the knowledge or background to actually discuss the details of the subject under consideration.

Imagine the World Series of Poker. Ten thousand people come to play poker. But when they arrive, it's announced that this is new version of poker and here's how it's played.

Everyone at the table is dealt one card. After the card is dealt a random generator tells what is the order of hands and cards at that table. For example, Jacks are high and 8s are low with the other cards scattered in between.

Now, the winner of that one card hand advances and every other HAND is eliminated. But the players get to stay. Each player who is eliminated gets to choose between two cards, without looking. One of the cards is the exact same card as the winning player's card. The other is a random card from the deck.

Now each of the players at the table has one card and about 50% will have the winning card. Now, another card is dealt. The random generator again makes up a order of hands and numbers. This time a pair of 3s is highest, next is the ace of spades, followed by a pair of kings, then any 2, etc.

The winner at each table is determined and every other player throws his hand out. This time, every other player selects from three cards. Two are the same as the winner's hand, the third is a random card from the deck. [This would be impossible to play in real life.]

Now, everyone has 2 cards. About 1/3 of the players at the table have the winning hand and 2/3s have one of the winning hand's cards and one random card.

Repeat until everyone has a 5 card hand. Then, everyone gets up and is randomly paired with another player. The random generator does its thing and every pair of players determines who won and who lost. The winner keeps playing, the loser goes home. Repeat starting with a new one card hand.

That's not a perfect analogy to evolution, but it's closer than anything you've said. However, the mathematics should be easy enough to follow.

You see how reproduction plays a part and increases the tendency for winning hands in the entire community. You see how within a population (a table) the winning hand will begin to dominate, unless there is a lucky mutation and a change in the environment (what's a winning hand) that emphasizes it.

For example, by the five card stage every hand has two pair. One pair of red kings and a pair of red threes. Now, one of the players ended up with a mutation in his hand that gave him an additional three. It hasn't mattered because he still has two pair (kings and threes). But suddenly, the environment changes and the full house becomes higher on the winning hand list than the two pair has been. Now, everyone's hand will tend to resemble the full house... but maybe one player picks 3 threes and a king and a 5. He doesn't have a full house anymore, but maybe the environment will change to have 3 of kind more favorable than a full house or two pair. Or maybe he ended up with a flush.

That's kind of how it works.

If you don't calculate the probability USING THE FACTORS AT THE TIME, then you are wasting your time.

Trying to determine the odds of getting a full house when you only have two cards in your hand is impossible. It's not even calculable, the question is meaningless. Like wise, assuming you have a great big pile of amino acids, then trying to determine the odds of getting a flagellal motor is also meaningless. It's the wrong question.

I couldn't disagree more that this has anything to do with natural selection or what I have discussed which is rather sad because it looks like you put a lot of work into it. :)

OF COURSE...the winning hands will eventually win the poker tournament?????

Are you trying to calculate the probabilities of someone winning? Perhaps you could list the points I'm missing....I'm trying here..lol

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

No, I don't...What...you are not familiar with survival of the fittest???

And I'll ignore your other post as those who know me online already know that my major in college was environmental chemistry with a biology minor...therefore that entire post is simply irrelevant to the discussion.

No, I don't...What...you are not familiar with survival of the fittest???

And I'll ignore your other post as those who know me online already know that my major in college was environmental chemistry with a biology minor...therefore that entire post is simply irrelevant to the discussion.

Well it sure wasn't mathematics, because you don't have the slightest clue when it comes to understanding probability theory.

--------------JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

Short "soundbites" won't further your debate...only well written, thought provoking posts will. Anyone reading this knows that when I stated: "The environment is irrelevant" I was referring to coin tosses and polypeptides forming from a racemic amino acid solution. Nothing else.

It doesn't have to go beyond math and science at this particular junction and you haven't pointed out how science says anything I've said IS wrong. But there is much more to YOU than a mind that only science controls. There is mind and non-mind. I hope you will discover your spiritual nature (maybe you have). Of course, some never will and I feel sorry for their spouses and children that love them. What a battle their loved ones fight and what a sad life they have as individuals, in my experience.

Why not just skip all the laughable mangling of science and mathematics, and move on to the preaching, Jerry? We all know that's where this is headed.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

...This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....

If we ignore chemistry for a bit here if we are talking about polypeptides forming from several nucleotides there won't be a racemic solution. You'll get one polypeptide and it's mirror image (assuming the mirror image isn't itself), another polypeptide and it's mirror image, etc. Of course that's if you ignore petty details like kinetics and thermodynamics, which you seem intent on doing.

eta: ok I read what Jerry wrote a bit wrong. I'll write more in a bit.

...This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....

If we ignore chemistry for a bit here if we are talking about polypeptides forming from several nucleotides there won't be a racemic solution. You'll get one polypeptide and it's mirror image (assuming the mirror image isn't itself), another polypeptide and it's mirror image, etc. Of course that's if you ignore petty details like kinetics and thermodynamics, which you seem intent on doing.

There is no need for you to ignore chemistry...lay it on me. And I promise not to ignore any.....in fact, one of my favorite subjects is chemical thermodynamics should you wish to discuss that topic with someone who has studied it.

The racemic mixture I was referring to...consisting of 50% left and 50% right handed amino acids will stay that way due to chemical equilibrium. If you have studied chemistry, you will, in fact, know that there is a law that dictates this...*wink*

You won't overcome that argument going to chemistry..that solution will always be racemic and therefore the math always work...in ANY environment.

...This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....

If we ignore chemistry for a bit here if we are talking about polypeptides forming from several nucleotides there won't be a racemic solution. You'll get one polypeptide and it's mirror image (assuming the mirror image isn't itself), another polypeptide and it's mirror image, etc. Of course that's if you ignore petty details like kinetics and thermodynamics, which you seem intent on doing.

There is no need for you to ignore chemistry...lay it on me. And I promise not to ignore any.....in fact, one of my favorite subjects is chemical thermodynamics should you wish to discuss that topic with someone who has studied it.

The racemic mixture I was referring to...consisting of 50% left and 50% right handed amino acids will stay that way due to chemical equilibrium. If you have studied chemistry, you will, in fact, know that there is a law that dictates this...*wink*

You won't overcome that argument going to chemistry..that solution will always be racemic and therefore the math always work...in ANY environment.

back to amino acids. Again, I thought you claimed to study this stuff. The interactions between any two amino acids are not going to be equal. This is obvious if you look at the structure and characteristics of the amino acids themselves.

I thought it would be obvious to anyone who claimed to study this stuff. If you like, I'll see if I can find references, though your best bet would be to refer to your college textbooks.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

Apologies in advance but I don't know how to do post/subscripts:

The bolded part can be assumed to be true if and only if the products are either identical or mirror images of one another. (One can't assume that the Ea or dH are equal unless the products are identical or mirror images. Rule of thumb I learned from chem courses is that if there are different compounds then more than likely they are at different energy levels. The only exception one can count on are enantiomers. Everything else has to be experimentally determined.)Why? Because if the activation energies are different enough you'll only see one product. If they are the same but the products have different energy levels and they are in equilibrium, then the products will form at the same rate but over time the product at the lower energy level will be formed in greater amounts.

So the larger the polypeptide chain, the worse your assumption (that all products have equal chance of formation) is.

Quote

Short "soundbites" won't further your debate...only well written, thought provoking posts will. Anyone reading this knows that when I stated: "The environment is irrelevant" I was referring to coin tosses and polypeptides forming from a racemic amino acid solution. Nothing else.

Even if that were true it doesn't help you at all, as I explained above, and as I implied before (and I'm guessing Ogre supplied links to) in the presence of a catalyst you can get homochirality. This is stuff I learned in the 90s (although not directly related to evolution; just organic chemistry).

If you will note the double slit experiments, of particular importance is that the photons/electrons (particles) seem to exhibit intelligence....they KNOW when they are, and when they are not being observed and change their behavior accordingly.

vs.

Quote

It is a known fact that bacterial genomes change over time. And unless you have a Flying Natural Selection Monster shuffling their nucleotides around with its noodley appendages then it is something that the bacterial genomes (its molecular intelligence) hence the bacteria are themselves capable of.

To paraphrase Dr.3, "it's just god of the gaps restated in the idiom of information theory."

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

yes, please do.

because this

Quote

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

is unlike any of the calculations that all of the other retards have come up with. And while that is not unexpected, it would still be hilarious for you to attempt to justify. Because you won't

How I'd like to see him try. That's the least the bigmouth could do.

it would be the christian thing, that's for sure. but Mr. Quantum-Mechanics-Is-Duh-Designer here don't give no shits about stuff like making sense because the CAT IS DEAD AND ALIVE AT THE SAME TIME AND ONLY JESUS CAN MAKE THE PARTICLES STOP WAVING

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

As to the CSI calculation, why do you ignore the fact that I posted in the other thread exactly how to calculate CSI; and the probability mathematics of proteins, of the type that comprise living tissue, forming naturally? It's all there, do you want me to link you back to it? :))))

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

yes, please do.

because this

Quote

If you want to know the CSI of YOU...just estimate the number of proteins in your body and multiply the math I gave you.

is unlike any of the calculations that all of the other retards have come up with. And while that is not unexpected, it would still be hilarious for you to attempt to justify. Because you won't

Here guys, now I'm not going to post the same things over and over and then rehash them but this one time...Please read the posts:

If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.

Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100). But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads. Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads? They’re still the same 1:(.5^100). I’m not getting all heads, but with odds against me of getting them, I’m not surprised at the result.

So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100). So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen.

The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

Proteins from which all of life is based are formed from amino acids. And these proteins are usually chains of from 50 to 50,000 amino acids.

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, let’s look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borel’s Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembski’s UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds don’t change.

For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?

The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.

But, I think I know where you are wanting to go and I would encourage you to expand your mind on this and take the discussion further.

Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.

More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

What do you think?

hey i have a question, could critical theory be of any use to these amino acids? what about non-normative philosophical orientations? do you think that seven could be involved?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

It doesn't have to go beyond math and science at this particular junction and you haven't pointed out how science says anything I've said IS wrong. But there is much more to YOU than a mind that only science controls. There is mind and non-mind. I hope you will discover your spiritual nature (maybe you have). Of course, some never will and I feel sorry for their spouses and children that love them. What a battle their loved ones fight and what a sad life they have as individuals, in my experience.

Why not just skip all the laughable mangling of science and mathematics, and move on to the preaching, Jerry? We all know that's where this is headed.

now now skipping foreplay is not sexy

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Yawn......here we go again...lol...all you have to say about heterochiral amino acids forming from a racemic mixture is: "I thought you studied this stuff"?

Quote

So, now that's out of the way...

No, there isn't anything out of the way. You never even addressed the topic. Do you really think that posting a bunch of irrelevant links brings an argument? What are you trying to say with those? Bring your argument, use quotes from papers as referrences, then provide the link. I'm afraid that you will never be taken seriously in the discussion by the readers until you do.

Quote

back to amino acids. Again, I thought you claimed to study this stuff. The interactions between any two amino acids are not going to be equal. This is obvious if you look at the structure and characteristics of the amino acids themselves.

I thought it would be obvious to anyone who claimed to study this stuff. If you like, I'll see if I can find references, though your best bet would be to refer to your college textbooks.

Me referring to my college textbooks will do nothing to support your argument...LOL....Again.....put your thoughts into your own words and use REFERENCES from those textbooks.

And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means). I simply gave the math involved for the right amino acids (thoses that support life) to form from a racemic solution consisting of 50% of the "right" ones and 50% of the "wrong" ones. It need be no more complicated than that.

But......weren't you one previously stating that CSI cannot be calculated and now that it IS being calculated you don't know what to do with the math? *wink*

The bolded part can be assumed to be true if and only if the products are either identical or mirror images of one another. (One can't assume that the Ea or dH are equal unless the products are identical or mirror images. Rule of thumb I learned from chem courses is that if there are different compounds then more than likely they are at different energy levels. The only exception one can count on are enantiomers. Everything else has to be experimentally determined.)Why? Because if the activation energies are different enough you'll only see one product. If they are the same but the products have different energy levels and they are in equilibrium, then the products will form at the same rate but over time the product at the lower energy level will be formed in greater amounts.

So the larger the polypeptide chain, the worse your assumption (that all products have equal chance of formation) is.

They ARE mirror images.......that's what the the left handed and right handed refers to when we are discussing Enantiomers (Enantiomers are what I'm talking about). You don't need to take a chemistry class to know this, just look up the term:

"either of a pair of optical isomers that are mirroe images of each other..."

The rest is simply irrelevant. If you think it is relevant then hone in on your argument with some references and I'll look at it.

and remember that a racemic solution is ALWAYS in equilibrium.

Quote

..... as I explained above, and as I implied before (and I'm guessing Ogre supplied links to) in the presence of a catalyst you can get homochirality. This is stuff I learned in the 90s (although not directly related to evolution; just organic chemistry).

You have refered twice now to the addition of a catalyst. A catalyst is simply an additional chemical added that increases the rate of a chemical reaction. What catalyst are you talking about and what is it you think it does to enantiomers when added to a racemic mixture? (also some references, please)

Also, if someone added this catalyst to the racemic mixture, isn't this intelligent design?

Yawn......here we go again...lol...all you have to say about heterochiral amino acids forming from a racemic mixture is: "I thought you studied this stuff"?

Quote

So, now that's out of the way...

No, there isn't anything out of the way. You never even addressed the topic. Do you really think that posting a bunch of irrelevant links brings an argument? What are you trying to say with those? Bring your argument, use quotes from papers as referrences, then provide the link. I'm afraid that you will never be taken seriously in the discussion by the readers until you do.

Quote

back to amino acids. Again, I thought you claimed to study this stuff. The interactions between any two amino acids are not going to be equal. This is obvious if you look at the structure and characteristics of the amino acids themselves.

I thought it would be obvious to anyone who claimed to study this stuff. If you like, I'll see if I can find references, though your best bet would be to refer to your college textbooks.

Me referring to my college textbooks will do nothing to support your argument...LOL....Again.....put your thoughts into your own words and use REFERENCES from those textbooks.

And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means). I simply gave the math involved for the right amino acids (thoses that support life) to form from a racemic solution consisting of 50% of the "right" ones and 50% of the "wrong" ones. It need be no more complicated than that.

But......weren't you one previously stating that CSI cannot be calculated and now that it IS being calculated you don't know what to do with the math? *wink*

OK. Let me say this very plainly because you have no idea what's going on.

1) There are multiple paths that can result in homochirality. The evidence for this is in those multiple papers I posted. Everything from circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans to the use of minerals as a chemical developmental template.

Therefore, your claim that all compounds must have an equal mixture of left and right hand forms is wrong. Done. Read the evidence. I know you won't, because you really don't care.

Now for this howler...

Quote

And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means)

Actually you did, because your entire "CSI calculation" depends on it. You have steadfastly refused to consider anything other than the 100% random combinations of various amino acids into polypeptides.

Yet, you now admit that these amino acids do not equally react to each other.

Therefore, your entire CSI 'calculation' is based on a false premise. Actually, that's just ANOTHER false premise that the CSI calculation is based on.

BTW: This has been fun, but I'm waiting for you to accept the challenge. Can you use the CSI calculation to determine the difference between a random string of amino acids and a designed string of amino acids?

Since we both know that you can't do this, then we all know that CSI is utterly useless.

As far as the "calculation" of CSI. You aren't calculating anything of the kind. You are only calculating the probability of random events happening. That's meaningless in the real world as the events your are talking about are not 100%. Heck modern protein synthesis in a living cell is less than 0.002% random (or something like that, I'm not going to go look up the average mutation rate right now, but it's incredibly small).

Again, that means that your CSI 'calculation', which, BTW, you have never actually done for any protein, is utterly useless.

Let me ask this question... say I gave you two mRNA sequences. They are exactly the same length, in fact there is only one nucleotide different between them, do they have the same amount of CSI?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

My intentions were a Gedankin experiment wherein: "what if" I reflipped all 100 coins from scratch......the previous flips do not matter at this point anymore because I'm now flipping 100 coins at once....New ones..another system. In that event, the odds of them all coming up heads are 1:(.5^100)

Sure—for any one instance of Flipping 100 Coins, the odds of getting 100 heads is, indeed, going to be 1:2100.Now, what are the odds of getting 100 heads in either of two instances of Flipping 100 Coins? Since this is a gedankenexperiment, we can imagine getting all 7 billion members of the entire human species to flip 100 coins apiece. Each one of those 7 billion people is one instance of Flipping 100 Coins; what are the odds of any one human being out of that 7 billion, getting 100 heads?

Quote

But what is my point in all this coin flipping? Because I ALWAYS (and have in here) receive comments from people who claim that probability math changes if given enough time......it does NOT. Time is simply irrelevant.

True if you're talking about a one-shot event, something that only ever has one opportunity to occur. False if you're talking about an event that has multiple opportunities to occur. While it's true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, cannot alter Event E's probability of occurring on any one opportunity for it to occur, it's also true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, can provide more opportunities for Event E to occur. And if there is more than one opportunity for Event E to occur, then the probability of Event E occurring during any of those opportunities is different from, and necessarily greater than, the probability that Event E will occur on any one of those opportunities.The math is actually pretty simple, as math goes: Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N).

Quote

It doesn't matter if I flip all the coins within a time period of a few minutes, if I flip one a year or if some deity (Thor or Mithris) flips one every million years or so.....the math is the same.

If all you're interested in is the probability that Event E occurs during any one opportunity for Event E to occur, then sure, you're right about the math being the same. But if you're interested in the probability that Event E will ever occur during any of N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the math is not the same.

Quote

BTW...You probably already know this, but for the readers, what you are now calculating is the CSI of a system.

Excuse me? I don't know anything of the kind. This is mostly because I have no friggin' clue what this "CSI" thingie is, nor how to go about calculating it. The calculations of mine which you refer to here, are calculations of how likely it is for a given whatzit to have occurred all at once, in a single stroke; if CSI actually is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, then fine, I was calculating CSI.Of course, if CSI genuinely is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, it follows that CSI is utterly and completely irrelevant to any whatzit which did not occur all at once, in a single stroke…

Quote

Quote

I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?

Of course not. Your logic is faulty here…

For the record: I was performing a reducto ad absurdum on a friggin' stoopid idea you'd expressed. Since you perceive the absurdity, my work here is done… well… 'done' until such time as you re-present the friggin' stoopid idea I stomped on. Which is sadly likely to happen, since you are a Creationist (of the ID flavor), and Creationists are notorious for re-presenting friggin' stoopid ideas for years and years after the friggin' stoopidity of said ideas has been incontrovertibly demonstrated.

Quote

What system am I studying or calculating--the 100 coin system flipped together, or the system of just the single coin I am presently flipping? It makes all the difference in the world because the figures you plug in and final calculation of the math will be quite different.

Yes, the specific details of the system you're studying are very relevant indeed to calculating the probability of that system's having yielded some particular result. So if you're interested in the probability of unguided abiogenesis having occurred, how about you pony up some specific details of the particular abiogenesis scenario you're looking at, so we can see how well your math describes that particular abiogenesis scenario?

Quote

Quote

If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.

Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…

I would be glad to do this with you because you are helping me take my coin analogy a step further. Why don't we just flip each coin 4 or 5 times until it comes up heads, then go to the next. You are correct, one would get 100 heads in that system every time and the probability math goes out the window. But what have we done?

We've shown that the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the specific details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E. Given a Process P1 that involves odds-of-heads of 1:2, and a different Process P2 that involves odds-of-heads of 1023:1024, the probability of getting 100 heads will vary dramatically, depending on whether the process by which you got 100 heads is Process P1, or Process P2, or some entirely different Process P3 whose odds-of-heads differs from the odds-of-heads of either Process P1 or Process P2, or what.

Quote

We have added intelligence into the system.

No, we've shown that the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E. If intelligence happens to be one of the details in question, then sure, intelligence can affect the probability of Event E's occurring—but that doesn't alter the fact that in general, even when intelligence is not one of the details in question, the probability of some Event E having occurred is dependent on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E.

Quote

Quote

Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind.

That's not correct… don't forget that Dembski is a mathematician…

Dude. You said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added] Since you were explicitly referring to shit that happened previous to Dembski's getting involved, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not Dembski is a mathematician?Apart from that, you're using the wrong tense in reference to Dembski's status as a mathematician. While Dembski was a mathematician, in the sense that he managed to earn a relevant qualification, he has long since stopped being a mathematician and become a fraud. But even if I accept your risible mischaracterization of Dembski as a 'mathematician', that does not make him a statistician. Since you said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added], one would hope that you would take care to, like, cite only statisticians in support of your assertion about what statisticians had "concluded through Borel’s Law". But hey, if you want to make IDiots look like idiots, do feel free to continue screwing up!

Quote

…and I named a few others including Borel.

Since "Borel's Law" doesn't actually say what you Creationists claim it says, you can name Borel all you want and it won't make any difference; you're still bullshitting. You also named Brewster and Morris, and you ignored my question: "How did Brewster and Morris come up with this '1067' figure?" Since, you know, the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E, it would be very interesting indeed to know the specific details Brewster and Morris were assuming when they calculated their putative "ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years".

Quote

Quote

If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.

This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so.

Like hell I can't. It's a standard 52-card deck, so whatever the first card is, the chance of that one card coming up has got to be 1:52. If you disagree, then please, by all means tell me why I'm wrong here.After I deal out the first card, there are (52 - 1 =) 51 cards left, so whatever Card #2 is, the chance that that card came up must be 1:51, and the chance of that particular 2-card sequence must be (1:52 * 51 =) 1:2,652. Again, if I'm wrong here, do inform me of where my error lies.After I deal out the second card, there are (52 - 2 = ) 50 cards, so whatever Card #3 is, its probability of coming up must be 1:50. Thus, the chance of that particular 3-card sequence coming up must be (1:52 * 51 * 50 =) 1:132,600.Similarly, the chance of any one 4-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 =) 1:6,497,400; the chance of any one 5-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 * 48 =) 1:311,875,200; the chance of any one 6-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 * 48 * 47 =) 1:14,658,134,400; and so on, until the chance of any one 52-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * … * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 =) 1:80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000

.

Quote

Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

If you are, indeed, talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever, then sure, odds don't enter into it. But I, at least, was not talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever. Rather, I was talking about the probability of getting one particular sequence, namely, the one particular sequence I got when I dealt out all 52 cards of a standard deck. I didn't specify it beforehand, to be sure, but prespecified or no, do you really want to tell me that the one particular sequence I got isn't one particular instance of the 52! possible sequences that can be generated by dealing out a standard 52-card deck?

Quote

Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

So… if I shuffle a standard 52-card deck, and I don't write down which card I expect to come up first… whatever that first card is, I can't say that the odds of that card having come up, are 1:52?Hmm.By this 'reasoning', it's not possible to work out the odds of abiogenesis if you haven't previously nailed down the specific details of abiogenesis. Okay, Jerry. Since you've been making noise about how abiogenesis is just too damned improbable, you obviously must have nailed down the details, right? Because if you haven't nailed down the details of abiogenesis, you obviously can't even begin to work out the probability of abiogenesis. So what are those details? Lay 'em out for everyone to see!Or, you know, don't. And by failing to lay out said details, provide yet more support (as if any were needed!) for the proposition that you're just bullshitting.

Quote

Quote

I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.

I'm not positive what you disagreeing with here. That the smallest bacterium I'm aware of consists of about 500 proteins?If so, that would be Mycoplasma genitalium…

What I'm disagreeing with is your implicit presumption that the simplest organism which exists today is necessarily the same thing as the simplest organism of all time. Yes, you haven't come right out and said that you're assuming the simplest contemporary organism must necessarily be the simplest organism of all time, but if you're not making that assumption, why did you bother dragging Mycoplasma genitalium into it?

Quote

And I never impied that higher complex lifeforms were involved in initial abiogenesis. Not sure where you got that.

The reason you're not sure where I "got that", is because I did not, in fact, "[get] that". You cited Mycoplasma genitalium, which is a contemporary life form, is it not? So I said "I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in [the origin of life]." Since the text you're replying to didn't mention "higher complex lifeforms", I would suggest that if you're wondering where "higher complex lifeforms" entered into the argument, you would be well advised to look in a friggin' mirror. I would further suggest that you refrain from putting words on other people's mouths, because that sort of crap is indicative of a variety of intellectual deficiencies.

OK. Let me say this very plainly because you have no idea what's going on.

Well alrighty then..

Quote

1) There are multiple paths that can result in homochirality. The evidence for this is in those multiple papers I posted. Everything from circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans to the use of minerals as a chemical developmental template.

Therefore, your claim that all compounds must have an equal mixture of left and right hand forms is wrong. Done. Read the evidence. I know you won't, because you really don't care.

OK..stop....How do "circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans" lead to a non-racemic solution of amino acids, of the same mirror image, just right to form polypeptides that might later result in life.

You are making extraordinary claims here that's never appeared in any textbook I have ever read. Do you really think that some vague papers you linked to is all you need to bring this argument?

No...state your postulates on how this happens....cut and paste from relevant papers from respected institutions and then provide links to them. That will be twice now that I have asked you to do this.

You are trying to reinvent chemistry...LOL....and I want to point out to the readers how far these guys have to go to bring even the hint of a credible argument to support their radical and non-scientific vews.

Quote

You have steadfastly refused to consider anything other than the 100% random combinations of various amino acids into polypeptides.

You haven't given me any other argument to consider. Do you think none of this would be random and that an Intelligent Designer is in there somewhere? Sure sounds like it to me...I thought you were arguing the other side.

Quote

Yet, you now admit that these amino acids do not equally react to each other.

What on earth are you talking about? I NOW admit this as if I didn't state this from the git-go? The laws of science stipulate this...chemical experiment thinks this, not me. It is YOU not based in science 'thinking' this and that will or would happen with not a shred of empirical evidence to shore up your dream world....not me.

Quote

BTW: This has been fun, but I'm waiting for you to accept the challenge. Can you use the CSI calculation to determine the difference between a random string of amino acids and a designed string of amino acids?

Again...I am here to debate you and to see the science that leads to your radical views...Not to play games, answer riddles, accept dares, double dares and challenges.

Quote

As far as the "calculation" of CSI. You aren't calculating anything of the kind. You are only calculating the probability of random events happening. That's meaningless in the real world as the events your are talking about are not 100%. Heck modern protein synthesis in a living cell is less than 0.002% random (or something like that, I'm not going to go look up the average mutation rate right now, but it's incredibly small).

WHOOOOoooshshsh....is the sound of points and analogies going over your head.

Quote

Let me ask this question... say I gave you two mRNA sequences. They are exactly the same length, in fact there is only one nucleotide different between them, do they have the same amount of CSI?

For about the 15th time, nobody but you CARES which has the higher CSI. To ask this question tells the world that you STILL don't have the foggiest idea what CSI is. Have you read Dembski at all? I would bet a dollar to a donut that you are attempting to argue something here that you have researched to ANY extent.

The purpose of CSI is to detect design. Does a system contain over 500 bits of information that is specified? It's designed.

You shouldn't care if A has this amount, B that amount etc........concentrate on design or non-design, that is the subject.

But let me guess, Claude Shannon was a kook too and we cannot even use his math to calculate the bits he postulated, can you....

OK. Let me say this very plainly because you have no idea what's going on.

Well alrighty then.. :)

Quote

1) There are multiple paths that can result in homochirality. The evidence for this is in those multiple papers I posted. Everything from circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans to the use of minerals as a chemical developmental template.

Therefore, your claim that all compounds must have an equal mixture of left and right hand forms is wrong. Done. Read the evidence. I know you won't, because you really don't care.

OK..stop....How do "circular polarization of sunlight and the effect on chemical formation in the top layer of oceans" lead to a non-racemic solution of amino acids, of the same mirror image, just right to form polypeptides that might later result in life.

You are making extraordinary claims here that's never appeared in any textbook I have ever read. Do you really think that some vague papers you linked to is all you need to bring this argument?

No...state your postulates on how this happens....cut and paste from relevant papers from respected institutions and then provide links to them. That will be twice now that I have asked you to do this.

You are trying to reinvent chemistry...LOL....and I want to point out to the readers how far these guys have to go to bring even the hint of a credible argument to support their radical and non-scientific vews.

Quote

You have steadfastly refused to consider anything other than the 100% random combinations of various amino acids into polypeptides.

You haven't given me any other argument to consider. Do you think none of this would be random and that an Intelligent Designer is in there somewhere? Sure sounds like it to me...I thought you were arguing the other side.

Quote

Yet, you now admit that these amino acids do not equally react to each other.

What on earth are you talking about? I NOW admit this as if I didn't state this from the git-go? The laws of science stipulate this...chemical experiment thinks this, not me. It is YOU not based in science 'thinking' this and that will or would happen with not a shred of empirical evidence to shore up your dream world....not me.

Quote

BTW: This has been fun, but I'm waiting for you to accept the challenge. Can you use the CSI calculation to determine the difference between a random string of amino acids and a designed string of amino acids?

Again...I am here to debate you and to see the science that leads to your radical views...Not to play games, answer riddles, accept dares, double dares and challenges.

Quote

As far as the "calculation" of CSI. You aren't calculating anything of the kind. You are only calculating the probability of random events happening. That's meaningless in the real world as the events your are talking about are not 100%. Heck modern protein synthesis in a living cell is less than 0.002% random (or something like that, I'm not going to go look up the average mutation rate right now, but it's incredibly small).

WHOOOOoooshshsh....is the sound of points and analogies going over your head.

Quote

Let me ask this question... say I gave you two mRNA sequences. They are exactly the same length, in fact there is only one nucleotide different between them, do they have the same amount of CSI?

For about the 15th time, nobody but you CARES which has the higher CSI. To ask this question tells the world that you STILL don't have the foggiest idea what CSI is. Have you read Dembski at all? I would bet a dollar to a donut that you are attempting to argue something here that you have researched to ANY extent.

The purpose of CSI is to detect design. Does a system contain over 500 bits of information that is specified? It's designed.

You shouldn't care if A has this amount, B that amount etc........concentrate on design or non-design, that is the subject.

But let me guess, Claude Shannon was a kook too and we cannot even use his math to calculate the bits he postulated, can you....

No, that science would conflict with your religious beliefs..... ;)

Jerry,

Those article show that there are multiple paths to non-equal solutions of isomers.

Feel free to ignore them. But they show that your claim is wrong. Note that it's not one paper, but many.

As far as this

Quote

You haven't given me any other argument to consider.

That's because it's YOUR argument. It's in the actual 'calculation' of CSI.

If you calculate CSI by assuming that all combinations are equally likely (which you do), then you ignore the simple fact (which you agree with) that amino acid combinations are NOT equally likely.

You have just shown that the basic 'calculation' that you have provided is useless.

You are debating against established science. Since you are 'debating' here instead of in peer-reviewed literature, I think we all know what your level of interest is in this.

Let me ask this very plainly.

Is a random sequence of nucleotides, amino acids, or whatever that contains more than 500 bits of information designed?

Let me also ask, which has more information (since you bring up shannon) 30 minutes of a Presidential speech or 30 minutes of white noise?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

They ARE mirror images.......that's what the the left handed and right handed refers to when we are discussing Enantiomers (Enantiomers are what I'm talking about). You don't need to take a chemistry class to know this, just look up the term:

"either of a pair of optical isomers that are mirroe images of each other..."

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

So before it was only implicit, but now you're explicitly stating that because a reaction starts with enantiomers, the products are going to be enantiomers, and you think there are 10^15,000 (hypothetical?) proteins that are mirror images of each other. I wouldn't expect an undergrad to make such a ridiculous error, but you claim to be a chemist. I stand by my original assessment.

They aren't all going to be enantiomers. They may be isomers, and possibly even stereoisomers. Some of those stereoisomers will be enantiomers of each other (which may or not be itself), but the rest will be diasteriomers (that may also have a mirror image).

I can only imagine you still don't get it at this point. Let's try an example and see what happens. Suppose there's a chiral compound A(s), and it's mirror image A® and they can form a dimer. A(s)-A® and A(s)-A(s) are not enantiomers. They are diasteriomers. Do you agree or disagree?